Chapter IV: Front Matter (4)

But it has been urged that the patriarchs held slaves, and therefore, slavery is right. Do you really believe that patriarchal servitude was like American slavery? Can you believe it? If so, read the history of these primitive fathers of the church and be undeceived. Look at Abraham, though so great a man, going to the herd himself and fetching a calf from thence and serving it up with his own hands, for the entertainment of his guests. Look at Sarah, that princess as her name signifies, baking cakes upon the hearth. If the servants they had were like Southern slaves, would they have performed such comparatively menial offices for themselves? Hear too the plaintive lamentation of Abraham when he feared he should have no son to bear his name down to posterity. "Behold thou hast given me no seed, &c., one born in my house is _mine_ heir." From this it appears that one of his _servants_ was to inherit his immense estate. Is this like Southern slavery? I leave it to your own good sense and candor to decide. Besides, such was the footing upon which Abraham was with _his_ servants, that he trusted them with arms. Are slaveholders willing to put swords and pistols into the hands of their slaves? He was as a father among his servants; what are planters and masters generally among theirs? When the institution of circumcision was established, Abraham was commanded thus; "He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, _every_ man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger which is not of thy seed." And to render this command with regard to his _servants_ still more impressive it is repeated in the very next verse; and herein we may perceive the great care which was taken by God to guard the _rights of servants_ even under this "dark dispensation." What too was the testimony given to the faithfulness of this eminent patriarch. "For I know him that he will command his children and his _household_ after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment." Now my dear friends many of you believe that circumcision has been superseded by baptism in the Church; _Are you_ careful to have _all_ that are born in your house or bought with money of any stranger, baptized? Are _you_ as faithful as Abraham to command _your household_ to _keep the way of the Lord?_ I leave it to your own consciences to decide. Was patriarchal servitude then like American Slavery?

But I shall be told, God sanctioned Slavery, yea commanded Slavery under the Jewish Dispensation. Let us examine this subject calmly and prayerfully. I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from violence, injustice, and wrong. I will first inform you how these servants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet, and the Bible, I find there were six different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.

1. A Hebrew, whose father was still alive, and who on that account had not inherited his patrimonial estate, might sell himself, i.e., his services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money _himself_. Ex. xxi, 2.

2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e., his _daughters_, in which circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife or daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives, not_ as slaves. Ex. xxi, 7-11.

3. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.

4. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.

5. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself; but in such a case he was to serve, not as a bondsman, whose term of service was only six years, nor was he to serve as a hired servant, who received his wages every evening, nor yet as a sojourner or temporary resident in the family, but he was to serve his master until the year of Jubilee[A]. Lev. xxv, 39, 40.

[Footnote A: If the reader will leave out the italicised words--But and And, in the 40th verse--he will find that I am fully authorized in the meaning I have attached to it. But and And are _not_ in the original Hebrew; have been introduced by the translators, and entirely destroy the true sense of the passage.]

6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who redeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred, and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55.

Before going into an examination of the laws by which these servants were protected, I would just ask whether American slaves have become slaves in any of the ways in which the Hebrews became servants. Did they sell themselves into slavery and receive the purchase money into their own hands? No! No! Did they steal the property of another, and were they sold to make restitution for their crimes? No! Did their present masters, as an act of kindness, redeem them from some heathen tyrant to whom _they had sold themselves_ in the dark hour of adversity? No! Were they born in slavery? No! No! Not according to _Jewish Law_, for the servants who were born in servitude among them, were born of parents who had _sold themselves_: Ex. xxi, 4; Lev. xxv, 39, 40. Were the female slaves of the South sold by their fathers? How shall I answer this question? Thousands and tens of thousands never were, _their_ fathers _never_ have received the poor compensation of silver or gold for the tears and toils, the suffering, and anguish, and hopeless bondage of _their_ daughters. They labor day by day, and year by year, side by side, in the same field, if haply their daughters are permitted to remain on the same plantation with them, instead of being, as they often are, separated from their parents and sold into distant states, never again to meet on earth. But do the _fathers of the South ever sell their daughters?_ My heart beats, and my hand trembles, as I write the awful affirmative, Yes! The fathers of this Christian land often sell their daughters, _not_ as Jewish parents did, to be the wives and daughters-in-law of the men who buy them, but to be the abject slaves of petty tyrants and irresponsible masters. Is it not so, my friends? I leave it to your own candor to corroborate my assertion. Southern slaves then have _not_ become slaves in any of the six different ways in which Hebrews became servants, and I hesitate not to say that American masters _cannot_ according to _Jewish law_ substantiate their claim to the men, women, or children they now hold in bondage.

But there was one way in which a Jew might illegally be reduced to servitude; it was this, he might be _stolen_ and afterwards sold as a slave, as was Joseph. To guard most effectually against this dreadful crime of manstealing, God enacted this severe law. "He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." And again, "If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then _that thief shall die_; and thou shalt put away evil from among you." Deut. xxiv, 7. As I have tried American Slavery by _legal_ Hebrew servitude, and found, (to your surprise, perhaps,) that Jewish law cannot justify the slaveholder's claim, let us now try it by _illegal_ Hebrew bondage. Have the Southern slaves then been stolen? If they did not sell themselves into bondage; if they were not sold as thieves; if they were not redeemed from a heathen master to whom _they had sold themselves;_ if they were not born in servitude according to Hebrew law; and if the females were not sold by their fathers as wives and daughters-in-law to those who purchased them; then what shall we say of them? what can we say of them? but that according _to Hebrew Law they have been stolen._

But I shall be told that the Jews had other servants who were absolute slaves. Let us look a little into this also. They had other servants who were procured from the heathen.

Bondmen and bondmaids might be bought of the heathen round about them. Lev. xxv, 44.

I will now try the right of the southern planter by the claims of Hebrew masters to their _heathen_ servants. Were the southern slaves bought from the heathen? No! For surely, no one will _now_ vindicate the slave-trade so far as to assert that slaves were bought from the heathen who were obtained by that system of piracy. The only excuse for holding southern slaves is that they were born in slavery, but we have seen that they were _not_ born in servitude as Jewish servants were, and that the children of heathen servants were not legally subjected to bondage, even under the Mosaic Law. How then have the slaves of the South been obtained?

I will next proceed to an examination of those laws which were enacted in order to protect the Hebrew and the Heathen servant; for I wish you to understand that _both_ were protected by Him, of whom it is said "his mercies are over _all_ his works." I will first speak of those which secured the rights of Hebrew servants. This code was headed thus:

1. Thou shalt _not_ rule over him with _rigor_, but shalt fear thy God.

2. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve, and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing. Ex. xxi, 2. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him _liberally_ out of thy flock and out of thy floor, and out of thy wine-press: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee, shalt thou give unto him. Deut. xv, 13, 14.

3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. Ex. xxi, 3.

4. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons and daughters, the wife and her children shall be his master's, and he shall go out by himself. Ex. xxi, 4.

5. If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; then his master shall bring him unto the Judges, and he shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him _for ever_. Ex. xxi, 5, 6.

6. If a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, he shall let him go _free_ for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his man servant's tooth or his maid servant's tooth, he shall let him go _free_ for his tooth's sake. Ex. xxi, 26, 27.

7. On the Sabbath, rest was secured to servants by the fourth commandment. Ex. xx, 10.

8. Servants were permitted to unite with their masters three times in every year in celebrating the Passover, the feast of Weeks, and the feast of Tabernacles; every male throughout the land was to appear before the Lord at Jerusalem with a gift; here the bond and the free stood on common ground. Deut. xvi.

9. If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Ex. xxi, 20, 21.

From these laws we learn, that one class of Hebrew men servants were bound to serve their masters _only six_ years, unless their attachment to their employers, their wives and children, should induce them to wish to remain in servitude, in which case, in order to prevent the possibility of deception on the part of the master, the servant was first taken before the magistrate, where he openly declared his intention of continuing in his master's service, (probably a public register was kept of such,) he was then conducted to the door of the house, (in warm climates doors are thrown open.) and _there_ his ear was _publicly_ bored, and by submitting to this operation, he testified his willingness to serve him in subserviency to the law of God; for let it be remembered, that the door-post was covered with the precepts of that law. Deut. vi, 9. xi, 20: _for ever_, i.e., during his life, for Jewish Rabbins, who must have understood Jewish _slavery_ (as it is called), "affirm that servants were set free at the death of their masters, and did _not_ descend to their heirs;" or that he was to serve him until the year of Jubilee, when _all_ servants were set at liberty. The other class, when they first sold themselves, agreed to remain until the year of Jubilee. To protect servants from violence, it was ordained, that if a master struck out the tooth or destroyed the eye of a servant, that servant immediately became _free_, for such an act of violence evidently showed he was unfit to possess the power of a master, and therefore that power was taken from him. All servants enjoyed the rest of the Sabbath, and partook of the privileges and festivities of the three great Jewish Feasts; and if a servant died under the infliction of chastisement, his master was surely to be punished. As a tooth for a tooth and life for life was the Jewish law, of course he was punished with death. I know that great stress has been laid upon the following verse: "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money."

Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized upon this little passage of Scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna Charta, by which they were licensed by God himself to commit the greatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But, my friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would protect by law the _eye_ and the _tooth_ of a Hebrew servant, can we for a moment believe that he would abandon that same servant to the brutal rage of a master who would destroy even life itself? Let us then examine this passage with the help of the context. In the 18th and 19th verses we have a law which was made for _freemen_ who strove together. Here we find, that if one man smote another, so that he died not, but only kept his bed from being disabled, and he rose again and walked abroad upon his staff, then _he_ was to be paid for the loss of his time, and all the expenses of his sickness were to be borne by the man who smote him. The freeman's time was _his own_, and therefore he was to be remunerated for the loss of it. But _not_ so with the _servant_, whose time was, as it were, _the money of his master_, because he had already paid for it: If he continued a day or two after being struck, to keep his bed in consequence of any wound received, then his lost time was _not_ to be paid for, because it was _not his own_, but his master's, who had already paid him for it. The loss of his time was the _master's loss_, and _not_ the servant's. This explanation is confirmed by the fact, that the Hebrew word translated continue, means "to stand still;" _i.e._, to be unable to go out about his master's work.

Here then we find this stronghold of slavery completely demolished. Instead of its being a license to inflict such chastisement upon a servant as to cause even death itself, it is in fact a law merely to provide that a man should not be required to pay his servant twice over for his time. It is altogether an unfounded assumption on the part of the slaveholder, that this servant _died_ after a day or two; the text does not say so, and I contend that he _got well_ after a day or two, just as the man mentioned in the 19th verse recovered from the effects of the blows he received. The cases are completely parallel, and the first law throws great light on the second. This explanation is far more consonant with the character of God, and were it not that our vision has been so completely darkened by the existence of slavery in our country, we never could so far have dishonored Him as to have supposed that He sanctioned the murder of a servant; although slaveholding legislators might legalize the killing of a slave in _four_ different ways.--(_Stroud's Sketch of Slave Laws_.)

But I pass on now to the consideration of how the _female_ Jewish servants were protected by _law_.

1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_ without money.

On these laws I will give you Calmet's remarks; "A father could not sell his daughter as a slave, according to the Rabbins, until she was at the age of puberty, and unless he were reduced to the utmost indigence. Besides, when a master bought an Israelitish girl, it was _always_ with the presumption that he would take her to wife. Hence Moses adds, 'if she please not her master, and he does not think fit to marry her, he shall set her at liberty,' or according to the Hebrew, 'he shall let her be redeemed.' 'To sell her to another nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her;' as to the engagement implied, at least of taking her to wife. 'If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters;' i.e., he shall take care that his son uses her as his wife, that he does not despise or maltreat her. If he make his son marry another wife, he shall give her her dowry, her clothes, and compensation for her virginity; if he does none of these three, she shall _go out free_ without money." Thus were the _rights of female servants carefully secured by law_ under the Jewish Dispensation; and now I would ask, are the rights of female slaves at the South thus secured? Are _they_ sold only as wives and daughters-in-law, and when not treated as such, are they allowed to _go out free?_ No! They have _all_ not only been illegally obtained as servants according to Hebrew law, but they are also illegally _held_ in bondage. Masters at the South and West have all forfeited their claims, (_if they ever had any,_) to their female slaves.

We come now to examine the case of those servants who were "of the heathen round about;" Were _they_ left entirely unprotected by law? Horne, in speaking of the law, "Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy God," remarks, "this law, Lev. xxv, 43, it is true, speaks expressly of slaves who were of Hebrew descent; but as _alien born_ slaves were ingrafted into the Hebrew Church by circumcision, _there is no doubt_ but that it applied to _all_ slaves:" if so, then we may reasonably suppose that the other protective laws extended to them also; and that the only difference between Hebrew and Heathen servants lay in this, that the former served but six years, unless they chose to remain longer, and were always freed at the death of their masters; whereas, the latter served until the year of Jubilee, though that might include a period of forty-nine years,--and were left from father to son.

There are, however, two other laws which I have not yet noticed. The one effectually prevented _all involuntary_ servitude, and the other completely abolished Jewish servitude every fifty years. They were equally operative upon the Heathen and the Hebrew.

1. "Thou shalt _not_ deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master unto thee. He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best: thou shalt _not_ oppress him." Deut. xxiii, 15, 16.

2. "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim _Liberty_ throughout _all_ the land, unto _all_ the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you." Lev. xxv, 10.

Here, then, we see that by this first law, the _door of Freedom was opened wide to every servant who_ had any cause whatever for complaint; if he was unhappy with his master, all he had to do was to leave him, and _no man_ had a right to deliver him back to him again, and not only so, but the absconded servant was to _choose_ where he should live, and no Jew was permitted to oppress him. He left his master just as our Northern servants leave us; we have no power to compel them to remain with us, and no man has any right to oppress them; they go and dwell in that place where it chooseth them, and live just where they like. Is it so at the South? Is the poor runaway slave protected _by law_ from the violence of that master whose oppression and cruelty has driven him from his plantation or his house? No! no! Even the free states of the North are compelled to deliver unto his master the servant that is escaped from his master into them. By _human_ law, under the _Christian Dispensation_, in the _nineteenth century we_ are commanded to do, what _God_ more than _three thousand_ years ago, under the _Mosaic Dispensation_, _positively commanded_ the Jews _not_ to do. In the wide domain even of our free states, there is not _one_ city of refuge for the poor runaway fugitive; not one spot upon which he can stand and say, I am a free man--I am protected in my rights as a _man_, by the strong arm of the law; no! _not one_. How long the North will thus shake hands with the South in sin, I know not. How long she will stand by like the persecutor Saul, _consenting_ unto the death of Stephen, and keeping the raiment of them that slew him. I know not; but one thing I do know, the _guilt of the North_ is increasing in a tremendous ratio as light is pouring in upon her on the subject and the sin of slavery. As the sun of righteousness climbs higher and higher in the moral heavens, she will stand still more and more abashed as the query is thundered down into her ear, "_Who_ hath required _this_ at thy hand?" It will be found _no_ excuse then that the Constitution of our country required that _persons bound to service_ escaping from their masters should be delivered up; no more excuse than was the reason which Adam assigned for eating the forbidden fruit. _He was condemned and punished because_ he hearkened to the voice of _his wife_, rather than to the command of his Maker; and _we_ shall assuredly be condemned and punished for obeying _Man_ rather than _God_, if we do not speedily repent and bring forth fruits meet for repentance. Yea, are we not receiving chastisement even _now_?

But by the second of these laws a still more astonishing fact is disclosed. If the first effectually prevented _all involuntary servitude_, the last absolutely forbade even _voluntary servitude being perpetual_. On the great day of atonement every fiftieth year the Jubilee trumpet was sounded throughout the land of Judea, and _Liberty_ was proclaimed to _all_ the inhabitants thereof. I will not say that the servants' _chains_ fell off and their _manacles_ were burst, for there is no evidence that Jewish servants _ever_ felt the weight of iron chains, and collars, and handcuffs; but I do say that even the man who had voluntarily sold himself and the _heathen_ who had been sold to a Hebrew master, were set free, the one as well as the other. This law was evidently designed to prevent the oppression of the poor, and the possibility of such a thing as _perpetual servitude_ existing among them.

Where, then, I would ask, is the warrant, the justification, or the palliation of American Slavery from Hebrew servitude? How many of the southern slaves would now be in bondage according to the laws of Moses; Not one. You may observe that I have carefully avoided using the term _slavery_ when speaking of Jewish servitude; and simply for this reason, that _no such thing_ existed among that people; the word translated servant does _not_ mean _slave_, it is the same that is applied to Abraham, to Moses, to Elisha and the prophets generally. _Slavery_ then _never_ existed under the Jewish Dispensation at all, and I cannot but regard it as an aspersion on the character of Him who is "glorious in Holiness" for any one to assert that "_God sanctioned, yea commanded slavery_ under the old dispensation." I would fain lift my feeble voice to vindicate Jehovah's character from so foul a slander. If slaveholders are determined to hold slaves as long as they can, let them not dare to say that the God of mercy and of truth _ever_ sanctioned such a system of cruelty and wrong. It is blasphemy against Him.

We have seen that the code of laws framed by Moses with regard to servants was designed to _protect them_ as _men and women_, to secure to them their _rights_ as _human beings_, to guard them from oppression and defend them from violence of every kind. Let us now turn to the Slave laws of the South and West and examine them too. I will give you the substance only, because I fear I shall trespass too much on your time, were I to quote them at length.

1. _Slavery_ is hereditary and perpetual, to the last moment of the slave's earthly existence, and to all his descendants to the latest posterity.

2. The labor of the slave is compulsory and uncompensated; while the kind of labor, the amount of toil, the time allowed for rest, are dictated solely by the master. No bargain is made, no wages given. A pure despotism governs the human brute; and even his covering and provender, both as to quantity and quality, depend entirely on the master's discretion[A].

[Footnote A: There are laws in some of the slave states, limiting the labor which the master may require of the slave to fourteen hours daily. In some of the states there are laws requiring the masters to furnish a certain amount of food and clothing, as for instance, _one quart_ of corn per day, or _one peck_ per week, or _one bushel_ per month, and "_one_ linen shirt and pantaloons for the summer, and a linen shirt and woolen great coat and pantaloons for the winter," &c. But "still," to use the language of Judge Stroud "the slave is entirely under the control of his master.--is unprovided with a protector,--and, especially as he cannot be a witness or make complaint in any known mode against his master, the _apparent_ object of these laws may _always_ be defeated." ED.]

3. The slave being considered a personal chattel may be sold or pledged, or leased at the will of his master. He may be exchanged for marketable commodities, or taken in execution for the debts or taxes either of a living or dead master. Sold at auction, either individually, or in lots to suit the purchaser, he may remain with his family, or be separated from them for ever.

4. Slaves can make no contracts and have no _legal_ right to any property, real or personal. Their own honest earnings and the legacies of friends belong in point of law to their masters.

5. Neither a slave nor a free colored person can be a witness against any _white_, or free person, in a court of justice, however atrocious may have been the crimes they have seen him commit, if such testimony would be for the benefit of a _slave_; but they may give testimony _against a fellow slave_, or free colored man, even in cases affecting life, if the _master_ is to reap the advantage of it.

6. The slave may be punished at his master's discretion--without trial--without any means of legal redress; whether his offence be real or imaginary; and the master can transfer the same despotic power to any person or persons, he may choose to appoint.

7. The slave is not allowed to resist any free man under _any_ circumstances, _his_ only safety consists in the fact that his _owner_ may bring suit and recover the price of his body, in case his life is taken, or his limbs rendered unfit for labor.

8. Slaves cannot redeem themselves, or obtain a change of masters, though cruel treatment may have rendered such a change necessary for their personal safety.

9. The slave is entirely unprotected in his domestic relations.

10. The laws greatly obstruct the manumission of slaves, even where the master is willing to enfranchise them.

11. The operation of the laws tends to deprive slaves of religious instruction and consolation.

12. The whole power of the laws is exerted to keep slaves in a state of the lowest ignorance.

13. There is in this country a monstrous inequality of law and right. What is a trifling fault in the _white_ man, is considered highly criminal in the _slave_; the same offences which cost a white man a few dollars only, are punished in the negro with death.

14. The laws operate most oppressively upon free people of color[A].

[Footnote A: See Mrs. Child's Appeal, Chap. II.]

Shall I ask you now my friends, to draw the _parallel_ between Jewish _servitude_ and American _slavery_? No! For there is _no likeness_ in the two systems; I ask you rather to mark the contrast. The laws of Moses _protected servants_ in their _rights_ as _men and women_, guarded them from oppression and defended them from wrong. The Code Noir of the South _robs the slave of all his rights_ as a _man_, reduces him to a chattel personal, and defends the _master_ in the exercise of the most unnatural and unwarrantable power over his slave. They each bear the impress of the hand which formed them. The attributes of justice and mercy are shadowed out in the Hebrew code; those of injustice and cruelty, in the Code Noir of America. Truly it was wise in the slaveholders of the South to declare their slaves to be "chattels personal;" for before they could be robbed of wages, wives, children, and friends, it was absolutely necessary to deny they were human beings. It is wise in them, to keep them in abject ignorance, for the strong man armed must be bound before we can spoil his house--the powerful intellect of man must be bound down with the iron chains of nescience before we can rob him of his rights as a man; we must reduce him to a _thing_ before we can claim the right to set our feet upon his neck, because it was only _all things_ which were originally _put under the feet of man_ by the Almighty and Beneficent Father of all, who has declared himself to be _no respecter_ of persons, whether red, white or black.

But some have even said that Jesus Christ did not condemn slavery. To this I reply that our Holy Redeemer lived and preached among the Jews only. The laws which Moses had enacted fifteen hundred years previous to his appearance among them, had never been annulled, and these laws protected every servant in Palestine. If then He did not condemn Jewish servitude this does not prove that he would not have condemned such a monstrous system as that of American _slavery_, if that had existed among them. But did not Jesus condemn slavery? Let us examine some of his precepts. "_Whatsoever_ ye would that men should do to you, do _ye even so to them_." Let every slaveholder apply these queries to his own heart; Am _I_ willing to be a slave--Am _I_ willing to see my wife the slave of another--Am _I_ willing to see my mother a slave, or my father, my sister or my brother? If not, then in holding others as slaves, I am doing what I would _not_ wish to be done to me or any relative I have; and thus have I broken this golden rule which was given _me_ to walk by.

But some slaveholders have said, "we were never in bondage to any man," and therefore the yoke of bondage would be insufferable to us, but slaves are accustomed to it, their backs are fitted to the burden. Well, I am willing to admit that you who have lived in freedom would find slavery even more oppressive than the poor slave does, but then you may try this question in another form--Am I willing to reduce _my little child_ to slavery? You know that _if it is brought up a slave_ it will never know any contrast, between freedom and bondage, its back will become fitted to the burden just as the negro child's does--_not by nature_--but by daily, violent pressure, in the same way that the head of the Indian child becomes flattened by the boards in which it is bound. It has been justly remarked that "_God never made a slave_," he made man upright; his back was _not_ made to carry burdens, nor his neck to wear a yoke, and the _man_ must be crushed within him, before _his_ back can be _fitted_ to the burden of perpetual slavery; and that his back is _not_ fitted to it, is manifest by the insurrections that so often disturb the peace and security of slaveholding countries. Who ever heard of a rebellion of the beasts of the field; and why not? simply because _they_ were all placed _under the feet of man_, into whose hand they were delivered; it was originally designed that they should serve him, therefore their necks have been formed for the yoke, and their backs for the burden; but _not so with man_, intellectual, immortal man! I appeal to you, my friends, as mothers; Are you willing to enslave _your_ children? You start back with horror and indignation at such a question. But why, if slavery is _no wrong_ to those upon whom it is imposed? why, if as has often been said, slaves are happier than their masters, free from the cares and perplexities of providing for themselves and their _wanting_? Try yourselves by another of the Divine precepts, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we love a man _as_ we love _ourselves if we do, and continue to do_ unto him, what we would not wish any one to do to us? Look, too, at Christ's example, what does he say of himself, "I came _not_ to be ministered unto, but to minister." Can you for a moment imagine the meek and lowly, and compassionate Saviour, _a slaveholder_? Do you not shudder at this thought as much as at that of his being _a warrior_? But why, if slavery is not sinful?

Again, it has been said, the Apostle Paul did not condemn slavery, for he sent Onesimus back to Philemon. I do not think it can be said he sent him back, for no coercion was made use of. Onesimus was not thrown into prison and then sent back in chains to his master, as your runaway slaves often are--this could not possibly have been the case, because you know Paul as a Jew, was _bound to protect_ the runaway; _he had no right_ to send _any_ fugitive back to his master. The state of the case then seems to have been this. Onesimus had been an unprofitable servant to Philemon and left him--he afterwards became converted under the Apostle's preaching, and seeing that he had been to blame in his conduct, and desiring by future fidelity to atone for past error, he wished to return, and the Apostle gave him the letter we now have as a recommendation to Philemon, informing him of the conversion of Onesimus, and entreating him as "Paul the aged" "to receive him, _not_ now as a _servant_, but _above_ a servant, a _brother beloved_, especially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord. If thou count _me_ therefore as a partner, _receive him as myself_." This, then, surely cannot be forced into a justification of the practice of returning runaway slaves back to their masters, to be punished with cruel beatings and scourgings as they often are. Besides the word _doulos_ here translated servant, is the same that is made use of in Matt. xviii, 27. Now it appears that this servant _owed_ his lord ten thousand talents; he possessed property to a vast amount. And what is still more surprising, if he was a _slave_, is, that "forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded _him_ to be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." Whoever heard of a slaveholder selling a _slave_ and his family to pay himself a debt due to him from a _slave_? What would he gain by it when the slave is himself his _property_, and his wife and children also? Onesimus could not, then, have been a _slave_, for slaves do not own their wives or children; no, not even their own bodies, much less property. But again, the servitude which the apostle was accustomed to, must have been very different from American slavery, for he says, "the heir (or son), as long as he is a child, differeth _nothing from a servant_, though he be lord of all. But is under _tutors_ and governors until the time appointed of the father." From this it appears, that the means of _instruction_ were provided for _servants_ as well as children; and indeed we know it must have been so among the Jews, because their servants were not permitted to remain in perpetual bondage, and therefore it was absolutely necessary they should be prepared to occupy higher stations in society than those of servants. Is it so at the South, my friends? Is the daily bread of instruction provided for _your slaves_? are their minds enlightened, and they gradually prepared to rise from the grade of menials into that of _free_, independent members of the state? Let your own statute book, and your own daily experience, answer these questions.

If this apostle sanctioned _slavery_, why did he exhort masters thus in his epistle to the Ephesians, "and ye, masters, do the same things unto them (i.e. perform your duties to your servants as unto Christ, not unto men) _forbearing threatening_; knowing that your master also is in heaven, neither is _there respect of persons with him_." And in Colossians, "Masters give unto your servants that which is _just and equal_, knowing that ye also have a master in heaven." Let slaveholders only _obey_ these injunctions of Paul, and I am satisfied slavery would soon be abolished. If he thought it sinful even to _threaten_ servants, surely he must have thought it sinful to flog and to beat them with sticks and paddles; indeed, when delineating the character of a bishop, he expressly names this as one feature of it, "_no striker_." Let masters give unto their servants that which is _just_ and _equal_, and all that vast system of unrequited labor would crumble into ruin. Yes, and if they once felt they had no right to the _labor_ of their servants without pay, surely they could not think they had a right to their wives, their children, and their own bodies. Again, how can it be said Paul sanctioned slavery, when, as though to put this matter beyond all doubt, in that black catalogue of sins enumerated in his first epistle to Timothy, he mentions "_menstealers_," which word may be translated "_slavedealers_." But you may say, we all despise slavedealers as much as any one can; they are never admitted into genteel or respectable society. And why not? Is it not because even you shrink back from the idea of associating with those who make their fortunes by trading in the bodies and souls of men, women, and children? whose daily work it is to break human hearts, by tearing wives from their husbands, and children from their parents? But why hold slavedealers as despicable, if their trade is lawful and virtuous? and why despise them more than the _gentlemen of fortune and standing_ who employ them as _their_ agents? Why more than the _professors of religion_ who barter their fellow-professors to them for gold and silver? We do not despise the land agent, or the physician, or the merchant, and why? Simply because their processions are virtuous and honorable; and if the trade of men-jobbers was honorable, you would not despise them either. There is no difference in _principle_, in _Christian ethics_, between the despised slavedealer and the _Christian_ who buys slaves from, or sells slaves to him; indeed, if slaves were not wanted by the respectable, the wealthy, and the religious in a community, there would be no slaves in that community, and of course no _slavedealers_. It is then the _Christians_ and the _honorable men_ and _women_ of the South, who are the _main pillars_ of this grand temple built to Mammon and to Moloch. It is the _most enlightened_, in every country who are _most_ to blame when any public sin is supported by public opinion, hence Isaiah says, "_When_ the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount _Zion_ and on _Jerusalem_, (then) I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks." And was it not so? Open the historical records of that age, was not Israel carried into captivity B.C. 721, Judah B.C. 588, and the stout heart of the heathen monarchy not punished until B.C. 536, fifty-two years _after_ Judah's, and 185 years, _after_ Israel's captivity, when it was overthrown by Cyrus, king of Persia? Hence, too, the apostle Peter says, "judgment must _begin at the house of God_." Surely this would not be the case, if the _professors of religion_ were not _most worthy_ of blame.

But it may be asked, why are _they_ most culpable? I will tell you, my friends. It is because sin is imputed to us just in proportion to the spiritual light we receive. Thus the prophet Amos says, in the name of Jehovah, "_You only_ have I known of all the families of the earth: _therefore_ I will punish _you_ for all your iniquities." Hear too the doctrine of our Lord on this important subject: "The servant who _knew_ his Lord's will and _prepared not_ himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with _many stripes_:" and why? "For unto whomsoever _much_ is given, _of him_ shall _much_ be required; and to whom men have committed _much_, of _him_ they will ask the _more_." Oh! then that the _Christians_ of the south would ponder these things in their hearts, and awake to the vast responsibilities which rest _upon them_ at this important crisis.

I have thus, I think, clearly proved to you seven propositions, viz.: First, that slavery is contrary to the declaration of our independence. Second, that it is contrary to the first charter of human rights given to Adam, and renewed to Noah. Third, that the fact of slavery having been the subject of prophecy, furnishes _no_ excuse whatever to slaveholders. Fourth, that no such system existed under the patriarchal dispensation. Fifth, that _slavery never_ existed under the Jewish dispensation; but so far otherwise, that every servant was placed under the _protection of law_, and care taken not only to prevent all _involuntary_ servitude, but all _voluntary perpetual_ bondage. Sixth, that slavery in America reduces a _man_ to a _thing_, a "chattel personal," _robs him_ of _all_ his rights as a _human being_, fetters both his mind and body, and protects the _master_ in the most unnatural and unreasonable power, whilst it _throws him out_ of the protection of law. Seventh, that slavery is contrary to the example and precepts of our holy and merciful Redeemer, and of his apostles.

But perhaps you will be ready to query, why appeal to _women_ on this subject? _We_ do not make the laws which perpetuate slavery. _No_ legislative power is vested in _us; we_ can do nothing to overthrow the system, even if we wished to do so. To this I reply, I know you do not make the laws, but I also know that _you are the wives and mothers, the sisters and daughters of those who do_; and if you really suppose _you_ can do nothing to overthrow slavery, you are greatly mistaken. You can do much in every way: four things I will name. 1st. You can read on this subject. 2d. You can pray over this subject. 3d. You can speak on this subject. 4th. You can act on this subject. I have not placed reading before praying because I regard it more important, but because, in order to pray right, we must understand what we are praying for; it is only then we can "pray with the understanding and the spirit also."

1. Read then on the subject of slavery. Search the Scriptures daily, whether the things I have told you are true. Other books and papers might be a great help to you in this investigation, but they are not necessary, and it is hardly probable that your Committees of Vigilance will allow you to have any other. The _Bible_ then is the book I want you to read in the spirit of inquiry, and the spirit of prayer. Even the enemies of Abolitionists, acknowledge that their doctrines are drawn from it. In the great mob in Boston, last autumn, when the books and papers of the Anti-Slavery Society, were thrown out of the windows of their office, one individual laid hold of the Bible and was about tossing it out to the crowd, when another reminded him that it was the Bible he had in his hand. _"Oh! 'tis all one,"_ he replied, and out went the sacred volume, along with the rest. We thank him for the acknowledgment. _Yes, "it is all one,"_ for our books and papers are mostly commentaries on the Bible, and the Declaration. Read the _Bible_ then; it contains the words of Jesus, and they are spirit and life. Judge for yourselves whether _he sanctioned_ such a system of oppression and crime.

2. Pray over this subject. When you have entered into your closets, and shut to the doors, then pray to your father, who seeth in secret, that he would open your eyes to see whether slavery is _sinful_, and if it is, that he would enable you to bear a faithful, open and unshrinking testimony against it, and to do whatsoever your hands find to do, leaving the consequences entirely to him, who still says to us whenever we try to reason away duty from the fear of consequences, _"What is that to thee, follow thou me."_ Pray also for the poor slave, that he may be kept patient and submissive under his hard lot, until God is pleased to open the door of freedom to him without violence or bloodshed. Pray too for the master that his heart may be softened, and he made willing to acknowledge, as Joseph's brethren did, "Verily we are guilty concerning our brother," before he will be compelled to add in consequence of Divine judgment, "therefore is all this evil come upon us." Pray also for all your brethren and sisters who are laboring in the righteous cause of Emancipation in the Northern States, England and the world. There is great encouragement for prayer in these words of our Lord. "Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in any name, he will give it to you"--Pray then without ceasing, in the closet and the social circle.

3. Speak on this subject. It is through the tongue, the pen, and the press, that truth is principally propagated. Speak then to your relatives, your friends, your acquaintances on the subject of slavery; be not afraid if you are conscientiously convinced it is _sinful_, to say so openly, but calmly, and to let your sentiments be known. If you are served by the slaves of others, try to ameliorate their condition as much as possible; never aggravate their faults, and thus add fuel to the fire of anger already kindled, in a master and mistress's bosom; remember their extreme ignorance, and consider them as your Heavenly Father does the _less_ culpable on this account, even when they do wrong things. Discountenance _all_ cruelty to them, all starvation, all corporal chastisement; these may brutalize and _break_ their spirits, but will never bend them to willing, cheerful obedience. If possible, see that they are comfortably and _seasonably_ fed, whether in the house or the field; it is unreasonable and cruel to expect slaves to wait for their breakfast until eleven o'clock, when they rise at five or six. Do all you can, to induce their owners to clothe them well, and to allow them many little indulgences which would contribute to their comfort. Above all, try to persuade your husband, father, brothers and sons, that _slavery is a crime against God and man_, and that it is a great sin to keep _human beings_ in such abject ignorance; to deny them the privilege of learning to read and write. The Catholics are universally condemned, for denying the Bible to the common people, but, _slaveholders must not_ blame them, for _they_ are doing the _very same thing_, and for the very same reason, neither of these systems can bear the light which bursts from the pages of that Holy Book. And lastly, endeavour to inculcate submission on the part of the slaves, but whilst doing this be faithful in pleading the cause of the oppressed.

"Will _you_ behold unheeding,
Life's holiest feelings crushed,
Where _woman's_ heart is bleeding,
Shall _woman's_ voice be hushed?"

4. Act on this subject. Some of you _own_ slaves yourselves. If you believe slavery is _sinful_, set them at liberty, "undo the heavy burdens and let the oppressed go free." If they wish to remain with you, pay them wages, if not, let them leave you. Should they remain, teach them, and have them taught the common branches of an English education; they have minds, and those minds _ought to be improved_. So precious a talent as intellect, never was given to be wrapt in a napkin and buried in the earth. It is the _duty_ of all, as far as they can, to improve their own mental faculties, because we are commanded to love God with _all our minds_, as well as with all our hearts, and we commit a great sin, if we _forbid or prevent_ that cultivation of the mind in others, which would enable them to perform this duty. Teach your servants, then, to read, &c., and encourage them to believe it is their _duty_ to learn, if it were only that they might read the Bible.