Cotton is King, and Pro-Slavery Arguments Part 40

[218] Speech in the Senate, in 1855.

[219] Speech in Boston, October 3d, 1850.

[220] Mr. Sumner has a great deal to say, in his speech, about "the memory of the fathers." When their sentiments agree with his own, or only seem to him to do so, then they are "the demi-G.o.ds of history." But only let these demi-G.o.ds cross his path or come into contact with his fanatical notions, and instantly they sink into sordid knaves. The framers of the Const.i.tution of the United States, says he, made "a compromise, which _cannot be mentioned without shame_. It was that _hateful bargain_ by which Congress was restrained until 1808 from the prohibition of the foreign slave trade, thus securing, down to that period, _toleration for crime_." . . . . "The effrontery of slaveholders was matched by _the sordidness of the Eastern members_." . . . . "The bargain was struck, and at this price the Southern States gained the detestable indulgence. At a subsequent day, Congress branded the slave trade as piracy, and thus, by solemn legislative act, adjudged this compromise to be _felonious and wicked_."

But for this compromise, as every one who has read the history of the times perfectly well knows, no union could have been formed, and the slave trade might have been carried on to the present day. By this compromise, then, the Convention did not tolerate crime nor the slave trade; they merely formed the Union, and, in forming it, _gained the power to abolish the slave trade in twenty years_. The gain of this power, which Congress had not before possessed, was considered by them as a great gain to the cause of humanity. If the Eastern members, from a blind and frantic hatred of slavery, had blasted all prospects of a union, and at the same time put the slave trade beyond their power forever, they would have imitated the wisdom of the abolitionists, who always promote the cause they seek to demolish.

If any one will read the history of the times, he will see that "the fathers," the framers of the Const.i.tution, were, in making this very compromise, governed by the purest, the most patriotic, and the most humane, of motives. He who accuses them of corruption shows himself corrupt; especially if, like Mr. Sumner, he can laud them on one page as demi-G.o.ds, and on the very next denounce them as sordid knaves, who, for the sake of filthy lucre, could enter into a "felonious and wicked"

bargain. Yet the very man who accuses them of having made so infamous and corrupt a bargain in regard to the slave trade can and does most eloquently declaim against the monstrous injustice of supposing them capable of the least act in favor of slavery!

[221] XII. Wendell, p. 314.

[222] XIV. Wendell, p. 530; XVI. Peters, p. 608.

[223] Indeed, if we had produced all the arguments in favor of the const.i.tutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law, it would have carried us far beyond our limits, and swelled this single chapter into a volume.

[224] This decision of the Supreme Court, which authorizes the master to seize his fugitive slave _without process_, (see his speech, Appendix to Congressional Globe, vol. xxii., part 2, p. 1587,) is exceedingly offensive to Mr. Chase of Ohio; and no wonder, since the Legislature of his own State has pa.s.sed a law, making it a penitentiary offense in the master who should thus prosecute his const.i.tutional right as declared by this decision. But, in regard to this point, the Supreme Court of the United States does not stand alone. The Supreme Court of New York, in the case of Jack _v._ Martin, had previously said: "Whether the owner or agent might have made the arrest in the first instance without any process, we will not stop to examine; authorities of deserved respectability and weight have held the affirmative. 2 Pick. 11, 5 Serg.

& Rawle, 62, and the case of Glen _v._ Hodges, in this court, before referred to, (in 9 Johnson,) seem to countenance the same conclusion. It would indeed appear to follow as a necessary consequence, from _the undoubted position, that under this clause of the Const.i.tution the right and t.i.tle of the owner to the service of the slave is as entire and perfect within the jurisdiction of the State to which he has fled as it was in the one from which he escaped. Such seizure would be at the peril of the party_; AND IF A FREEMAN WAS TAKEN, HE WOULD BE ANSWERABLE LIKE ANY OTHER TRESPa.s.sER OR KIDNAPPER."

[225] Story on Const.i.tution, vol. iii. book iii., chap. xl.

[226] The framers of the Const.i.tution in that Congress were:--"John Langdon and Nicholas Gilmer, of New Hamps.h.i.+re; Caleb Strong and Elbridge Gerry, of Ma.s.sachusetts; Roger Sherman and Oliver Elsworth, of Connecticut; Rufus King, of New York; Robert Morris and Thomas Fitzsimmons, of Pennsylvania; George Reid and Richard Ba.s.set, of Delaware; Jonathan Dayton, of New Jersey; Pierce Butler, of South Carolina; Hugh Williamson, of North Carolina; William Few and Abraham Baldwin, of Georgia; and last, but not least, James Madison, of Virginia." Yet from not one of these framers of the Const.i.tution--from not one of these ill.u.s.trious guardians of freedom--was a syllable heard in regard to the right of trial by jury in connection with the Fugitive Slave Law then pa.s.sed. The more pity it is, no doubt, the abolitionist will think, that neither Mr. Chase, nor Mr. Sumner, nor Mr. Seward, was there to enlighten them on the subject of trial by jury and to save the country from the infamy of such an Act. Alas! for the poor, blind fathers!

[227] This crime of kidnapping, says Mr. Chase, of Ohio, is "not unfrequent" in his section of country; that is, about Cincinnati.

[228] Appendix to Congressional Globe, vol. xxii., part ii., p. 1587.

THE

BIBLE ARGUMENT:

OR,

SLAVERY IN THE LIGHT OF DIVINE REVELATION.

BY

THORNTON STRINGFELLOW, D. D.,

OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

THE BIBLE ARGUMENT:

OR,

SLAVERY IN THE LIGHT OF DIVINE REVELATION.

CIRc.u.mSTANCES exist among the inhabitants of these United States, which make it proper that the Scriptures should be carefully examined by Christians in reference to the inst.i.tution of slavery, which exists in several of the States, with the approbation of those who profess unlimited subjection to G.o.d's revealed will.

It is branded by one portion of people, who take their rule of moral rect.i.tude from the Scriptures, as a great sin; nay, the greatest of sins that exist in the nation. And they hold the obligation to exterminate it, to be paramount to all others.

If slavery be thus sinful, it behooves all Christians who are involved in the sin, to repent in dust and ashes, and wash their hands of it, without consulting with flesh and blood. Sin in the sight of G.o.d is something which G.o.d in his word makes known to be wrong, either by preceptive prohibition, by principles of moral fitness, or examples of inspired men, contained in the sacred volume. When these furnish no law to condemn human conduct, there is no transgression. Christians should produce a "thus saith the Lord," both for what they condemn as sinful, and for what they approve as lawful, in the sight of heaven.

It is to be hoped, that on a question of such vital importance as this to the peace and safety of our common country, as well as to the welfare of the church, we shall be seen cleaving to the Bible, and taking all our decisions about this matter, from its inspired pages. With men from the North, I have observed for many years a palpable ignorance of the Divine will, in reference to the inst.i.tution of slavery. I have seen but a few who made the Bible their study, that had obtained a knowledge of what it did revea on this subject. Of late their denunciation of slavery as a sin, is loud and long.

I propose, therefore, to examine the sacred volume briefly, and if I am not greatly mistaken, I shall be able to make it appear that the inst.i.tution of slavery has received, in the first place,

1st. The sanction of the Almighty in the Patriarchal age.

2d. That it was incorporated into the only National Const.i.tution which ever emanated from G.o.d.

3d. That its legality was recognized, and its relative duties regulated, by Jesus Christ in his kingdom; and

4th. That it is full of mercy.

Before I proceed further, it is necessary that the terms used to designate the thing, be defined. It is not a name, but a thing, that is denounced as sinful; because it is supposed to be contrary to, and prohibited by the Scriptures.

Our translators have used the term servant, to designate a state in which persons were serving, leaving us to gather the _relation_ between the party served, and the party rendering the service, from other terms.

The term slave, signifies with us, a definite state, condition, or relation, which state, condition, or relation, is precisely that one which is denounced as sinful. This state, condition, or relation, is that in which one human being is held without his consent, by another, as property;[229] to be bought, sold, and transferred, together with increase, as property forever. Now, this precise thing, is denounced by a portion of the people of these United States, as the greatest individual and national sin that is among us, and is thought to be so hateful in the sight of G.o.d, as to subject the nation to ruinous judgments, if it be not removed. Now, I propose to show from the Scriptures, that this state, condition, or relation, did exist in the _patriarchal age_, and that the persons most extensively involved in the sin, if it be a sin, are the very persons who have been singled out by the Almighty, as the objects of his special regard--whose character and conduct he has caused to be held up as _models_ for future generations.

Before we conclude slavery to be a thing hateful to G.o.d, and a great sin in his sight, it is proper that we should search the records he has given us, with care, to see in what light he has looked upon it, and find the warrant for concluding, that we shall honor him by efforts to abolish it; which efforts, in their consequences, may involve the indiscriminate slaughter of the innocent and the guilty, the master and the servant. We all believe him to be a Being who is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.

The first recorded language which was ever uttered in relation to slavery, is the inspired language of Noah. In G.o.d's stead he says, "Cursed be Canaan;" "a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren."

"Blessed be the Lord G.o.d of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." "G.o.d shall enlarge j.a.pheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."--Gen. ix: 25, 26, 27. Here, language is used, showing the _favor_ which G.o.d would exercise to the posterity of Shem and j.a.pheth, while they were holding the posterity of Ham in a state of _abject bondage_. May it not be said in truth, that G.o.d decreed this inst.i.tution before it existed; and has he not connected its _existence_ with prophetic tokens of special favor, to those who should be slave owners or masters? He is the same G.o.d now, that he was when he gave these views of his moral character to the world; and unless the posterity of Shem and j.a.pheth, from whom have sprung the Jews, and all the nations of Europe and America, and a great part of Asia, (the African race that is in them excepted,)--I say, unless they are all dead, as well as the Canaanites or Africans, who descended from Ham, then it is quite possible that his favor may now be found with one cla.s.s of men who are holding another cla.s.s in bondage. Be this as it may, G.o.d _decreed slavery_--and shows in that decree, tokens of good-will to the master. The sacred records occupy but a short s.p.a.ce from this inspired ray on this subject, until they bring to our notice, a man that is held up as a model, in all that adorns human nature, and as one that G.o.d delighted to honor. This man is Abraham, honored in the sacred records, with the appellation, "Father" of the "faithful." Abraham was a native of Ur, of the Chaldees. From thence the Lord called him to go to a country which he would show him; and he obeyed, not knowing whither he went. He stopped for a time at Haran, where his father died. From thence he "took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls they had gotten in Haran, and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan."--Gen. xii: 5.

All the ancient Jewish writers of note, and Christian commentators agree, that by the "souls they had gotten in Haran," as our translators render it, are meant their slaves, or those persons they had bought with their money in Haran. In a few years after their arrival in Canaan, Lot with all he had was taken captive. So soon as Abraham heard it, he armed three hundred and eighteen slaves that were born in his house, and retook him. How great must have been the entire slave family, to produce at this period of Abraham's life, such a number of young slaves able to bear arms.--Gen. xiv: 14.

Abraham is constantly held up in the sacred story, as the subject of great distinction among the princes and sovereigns of the countries in which he sojourned. This distinction was on account of his great wealth.

When he proposed to buy a burying-ground at Sarah's death, of the children of Heth, he stood up and spoke with great humility of himself as "a stranger and sojourner among them," (Gen. xxiii: 4,) desirous to obtain a burying-ground. But in what light do they look upon him? "Hear us, my Lord, thou art a mighty prince among us."--Gen. xxiii: 6. Such is the light in which they viewed him. What gave a man such distinction among such a people? Not moral qualities, but great wealth, and its inseparable concomitant, power. When the famine drove Abraham to Egypt, he received the highest honors of the reigning sovereign. This honor at Pharaoh's court, was called forth by the visible tokens of immense wealth. In Genesis xii: 15, 16, we have the honor that was shown to him, mentioned, _with a list of his property_, which is given in these words, in the 16th verse: "He had sheep, and oxen, and he-a.s.ses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-a.s.ses, and camels." The _amount_ of his flocks may be inferred from the _number of slaves_ employed in tending them. They were those he brought from Ur of the Chaldees, of whom the three hundred and eighteen were born; those gotten in Haran, where he dwelt for a short time, and those which he inherited from his father, who died in Haran. When Abraham _went up_ from Egypt, it is stated in Genesis xiii: 2, that he was "_very rich_," not only in _flocks_ and _slaves_, but in "_silver_ and _gold_" also.

After the destruction of Sodom, we see him sojourning in the kingdom of Gerar. Here he received from the sovereign of the country, the honors of equality; and Abimelech, the king, (as Pharoah had done before him,) seeks Sarah for a wife, under the idea that she was Abraham's sister.

When his mistake was discovered, he made Abraham a large present. Reason will tell us, that in selecting the items of this present, Abimelech was governed by the visible indications of Abraham's preference in the articles of wealth--and that above all, he would present him with nothing which Abraham's sense of moral obligation would not allow him to own. Abimelech's present is thus described in Genesis xx: 14, 16, "And Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and women-servants, and a thousand pieces of silver, and gave them unto Abraham." This present discloses to us what const.i.tuted the most highly prized items of wealth, among these eastern sovereigns in Abraham's day.

G.o.d had promised Abraham's seed the land of Canaan, and that in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. He reached the age of eighty-five, and his wife the age of seventy-five, while as yet, they had no child. At this period, Sarah's anxiety for the promised seed, in connection with her age, induced her to propose a female slave of the Egyptian stock, as a secondary wife, from which to obtain the promised seed. This alliance soon puffed the slave with pride, and she became insolent to her mistress--the mistress complained to Abraham, the master. Abraham ordered Sarah to exercise her authority. Sarah did so, and pushed it to severity, and the slave absconded. The divine oracles inform us, that the angel of G.o.d found this run-away bond-woman in the wilderness; and if G.o.d had commissioned this angel to improve this opportunity of teaching the world how much he abhorred slavery, he took a bad plan to acomplish it. For, instead of repeating a homily upon doing to others as we "would they should do unto us," and heaping reproach upon Sarah, as a hypocrite, and Abraham as a tyrant, and giving Hagar direction how she might get into Egypt, from whence (according to abolitionism) she had been unrighteously sold into bondage, the angel addressed her as "Hagar, Sarah's maid," Gen. xvi: 1, 9; (thereby recognizing the relation of master and slave,) and asks her, "whither wilt thou go?" and she said "I flee from the face of my mistress." Quite a wonder she honored Sarah so much as to call her mistress; but she knew nothing of abolition, and G.o.d by his angel did not become her teacher.

We have now arrived at what may be called an _abuse_ of the inst.i.tution, in which one person is the property of another, and under their control, and subject to their authority without their consent; and if the Bible be the book, which proposes to furnish the case which leaves it without doubt that G.o.d abhors the inst.i.tution, here we are to look for it. What, therefore, is the doctrine in relation to slavery, in a case in which a rigid exercise of its arbitrary authority is called forth upon a helpless female; who might use a strong plea for protection, upon the ground of being the master's wife. In the face of this case, which is hedged around with aggravations as if G.o.d designed by it to awaken all the sympathy and all the abhorrence of that portion of mankind, who claim to have more mercy than G.o.d himself--but I say, in view of this strong case, what is the doctrine taught? Is it that G.o.d abhors the inst.i.tution of slavery; that it is a reproach to good men; that the evils of the inst.i.tution can no longer be winked at among saints; that Abraham's character must not be transmitted to posterity, with this stain upon it; that Sarah must no longer be allowed to live a stranger to the abhorrence G.o.d has for such conduct as she has been guilty of to this poor helpless female? I say, what is the doctrine taught? Is it so plain that it can be easily understood? and does G.o.d teach that she is a bond-woman or slave, and that she is to recognize Sarah as her mistress, and not her equal--that she must return and submit herself unreservedly to Sarah's authority? Judge for yourself, reader, by the angel's answer: "And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Return unto thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands."--Gen. xvi: 9.

But, says the spirit of abolition, with which the Bible has to contend, you are building your house upon the sand, for these were nothing but hired servants; and their servitude designates no such state, condition, or relation, as that, in which one person is made the property of another, to be bought, sold, or transferred forever. To this, we have two answers in reference to the subject, _before giving the law_. In the first place, the term servant, in the schedules of property among the patriarchs, _does designate_ the state, condition, or relation in which one person is the legal property of another, as in Gen. xxiv: 35, 36. Here Abraham's servant, who had been sent by his master to get a wife for his son Isaac, in order to prevail with the woman and her family, states, that the man for whom he sought a bride, was the son of a man whom G.o.d had greatly blessed with riches; which he goes on to enumerate thus, in the 35th verse: "He hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and camels, and a.s.ses;" then in verse 36th, he states the disposition his master had made of his estate: "My master's wife bare a son to my master when she was old, and unto him he hath given all that he hath."

Here, servants are enumerated with silver and gold as part of the patrimony. And, reader, bear it in mind; as if to rebuke the doctrine of abolition, servants are not only inventoried as property, but as property which _G.o.d had given to Abraham_. After the death of Abraham, we have a view of Isaac at Gerar, when he had come into the possession of this estate; and this is the description given of him: "And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great; for he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and _great store of servants_."--Gen. xxvi: 13, 14. This state in which servants are made chattels, he received as an inheritance from his father, and pa.s.sed to his son Jacob.

Again, in Genesis xvii, we are informed of a covenant G.o.d entered into with Abraham; in which he stipulates to be a G.o.d to him and his _seed_, (not his servants,) and to give to his _seed_ the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. He expressly stipulates, that Abraham shall put the token of this covenant upon every servant born in his house, and upon every servant _bought with his money of any stranger_.--Gen. xvii: 12, 13. Here again servants are property. Again, more than four hundred years afterward, we find the _seed_ of Abraham, on leaving Egypt, directed to celebrate the rite, that was ordained as a memorial of their deliverance, viz: the Pa.s.sover, at which time the same inst.i.tution which makes _property_ of _men_ and _women_, is recognized, and the _servant bought with money_, is given the privilege of partaking, upon the ground of his being circ.u.mcised _by his master_, while the hired servant, over whom the master had no such control, is excluded until he _voluntarily_ submits to circ.u.mcision; showing clearly that the inst.i.tution of involuntary slavery then carried with it a right, on the part of the master, _to choose_ a religion _for the servant_ who was his money, as Abraham did, by G.o.d's direction, when he imposed circ.u.mcision on those he had bought with his money,--when he was circ.u.mcised himself, with Ishmael his son, who was the only individual beside himself, on whom he had a right to impose it, except the bond-servants bought of the stranger with his money, and their children born in his house. The next notice we have of servants as property, is from G.o.d himself, when clothed with all the visible tokens of his presence and glory, on the top of Sinai, when he proclaimed his law to the millions that surrounded its base: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his a.s.s, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's."--Ex. xx: 17. Here is a patriarchal catalogue of property, having G.o.d for its author, the wife among the rest, who was then purchased, as Jacob purchased his two, by fourteen years' service. Here the term servant, as used by the Almighty, under the circ.u.mstances of the case could not be understood by these millions, as meaning any thing but property, because the night they left Egypt, a few weeks before, Moses, by Divine authority, recognized their servants as property, which they had bought with their money.

2d. In addition to the evidence from the context of these, and various other places, to prove the term servant to be identical in the import of its essential particulars with the term slave among us, there is unquestionable evidence, that _in the patriarchal age_, there are two distinct states of servitude alluded to, and which are indicated by two distinct terms, or by the same term, and an adjective to explain.