Part 3 (1/2)
”They were a comparatively innocent, unoffending, contented, happy race. It was not until slave-dealers introduced among them every thing that could please the fancy and awaken the cupidity of uncivilized men, that they were at all p.r.o.ne to interfere with each other's happiness. By the more than brutal cruelty of white men, quarrels were fomented, tribe was set against tribe, and each supplied with the means of mutual destruction.”
”Then what is man? And what man, seeing this, And having human feelings, does not blush, And hang his head, to think himself a man?”
Besides all this, recollect that there are about FIFTY MILLIONS of Africans left exposed to the debasing influence of this h.e.l.lish practice. And if the Colonization Society did nothing more than stop or check this torrent of infernal iniquity, it ought to render its friends and advocates immortal, and make those blush (_if blush they could_) who vilify and slander them.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ERRORS OF THE QUARTERLY ANTI-SLAVERY MAGAZINE, FOR APRIL, 1837, RESPECTING THE SCRIPTURAL WORDS ”_Servant_”--”_Property_”--”_Buy_,” &C., BRIEFLY NOTICED.
There is no argument more frequently used by Abolitionists than that the Scriptures prohibit the purchase, or sale of men, or holding any man as property--and as the above Magazine has no doubt contributed much, by the talent, learning, and _ingenuity_, (I don't like to say sophistry) of its editor (Mr. Elizur Wright, jun.,) to build up this most preposterous a.s.sertion, I shall take leave to investigate a few of the arguments adopted therein.
There is a great difference between a man going to the Bible to find sanction for an opinion which he has _already_ formed, and a man going to the Bible, for its opinion. The one first forms his own ideas of things, of what is, and what is not, right or wrong, and then goes to the Scriptures to sanction or corroborate those ideas; the other forms no opinion whatever, until he searches the sacred oracles of truth to ascertain what _they_ say on the subject.
Now it appears to me evident that the editor of this periodical acted on the former principle--he first came to the conclusion, that ”_to own_,”
”_to buy_,” or ”_to sell_,” a human being, was wrong and unscriptural; and then went to the Bible to _make_ it prove that his opinions were correct. And so far has he been carried away with his preconceived opinions, and so much did he labour under the ”_spell_” of Abolitionism, that he frequently confounds the act of purchasing a man, with the act of stealing a man! using synonymously the terms ”purchasing” and ”stealing!” Thus when he attempts to prove that purchasing a man is unscriptural, and that all slave-holders ought to be put to death, he refers to the twenty-first chapter of Exodus and sixteenth verse! (See said Magazine, page 247-249). But how does this read, ”He that STEALETH a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” It does _not_ read, ”he that stealeth, OR selleth:”
no, no! the whole and only crime condemned here was, ”STEALING the man;”
but retaining or not retaining him, or selling him, did not exculpate the thief!
This is one of the most unhappy pa.s.sages in the whole Bible, the Abolitionists could have selected: for while it incontrovertibly sanctions ”selling men,” by making ”the selling” no excuse for ”the stealing,” it condemns _to death_ the African traders, for their conduct, and the American Abolitionists, for theirs.[45:A]
The editor builds nearly the whole of his arguments, which occupy 126 pages, on TWO ERRONEOUS PRINCIPLES--which principles, if I prove to be really erroneous, I need not wade through his numerous conclusions to show the fallacy of each and every one of them; ”for every argument built upon a false position necessarily ends in an absurd conclusion.”
The two principles or pillars of his edifice are, 1st. That as the same word (both in Hebrew and in Greek) signifies both slave and servant, and as every slave is a servant, therefore, every servant, is a slave! This species of logic reminds me of the syllogism, that, ”as, every man is an animal, and a horse is an animal, _therefore_, every man _is_ a horse!”
Is it necessary to spend time in exhibiting the folly and fallaciousness of this first principle? A child would laugh at it; yet this work is held up by Abolitionists, as of almost equal authority with the Bible itself!
One or two conclusions drawn from this first principle will, no doubt, be gratifying to the reader. In page 220, the editor proceeds thus:
”To keep the South in good spirits, we must believe not only that Abraham kept slaves, but that our _blessed Saviour was a slave-holder_! Of course _heaven must be_, on a larger scale, like one of those establishments which line the sh.o.r.es of the Mississippi. When they find a text which recognises _masters_ or _servants_, they consider it triumphant.
”_First._ It will prove that every country in Christendom is a slave region. On every farm in Great Britain there are _servants_. Every statute and every instrument of writing which obliges _tenants_, and _keepers of cattle_, &c., calls them _servants_, and their landlord or employer master. Is Great Britain a slave region? And in our own country every white apprentice is, in his indenture, called a _servant_. Is he a slave?
”_Second._ It will prove that slavery is the _only_ kind of servitude which the Scriptures approve. At one ”fell swoop,”
it would unchurch the professors at Princeton, and every master and servant in our free states. If the term _servant_, of itself, and necessarily, signifies a _slave_, it follows not only that _the kingdom of G.o.d has always been like the kingdom of the devil_, in regard to servitude and personal rights, but that voluntary and requited servitude is a modern innovation, for which there is neither precedent nor example in Holy Writ; and therefore it is at least doubtful _whether a voluntary servant, and the master who pays him wages, ought to be received into the Church_! For if inspired men always pa.s.sed them by unnoticed--if those whom they instruct and recognise as believers were slaves and slavemasters exclusively, where shall we find example for admitting the voluntary servant and his master, till they qualify themselves by slavery? Thus the a.s.sumption in question leads to the conclusion, not that G.o.d tolerated slavery, _but that he tolerated nothing else_.”!!!
The above paragraph furnishes an admirable specimen of the species of _reasoning_ by which Abolitionists are _deluded_!
The second principle, upon which the Editor builds his arguments, is that as the original word which signifies ”_to buy_” sometimes signifies something else, therefore it _never_ signifies what we mean by _buying_ or _purchasing_! I am really astonished at this gentleman's forgetfulness, for to nothing else do I wish to attribute his reasoning on this subject. He will therefore pardon me in _reminding_ him that just in proportion to the poverty of any language, does each word in that language represent numerous ideas; in which case the real meaning intended by the writer can be ascertained, to a certainty, only by the concomitant circ.u.mstances, or adjoining expressions. If in our own language, which is so rich, we have numerous words, each representing many distinct ideas, is it at all surprising that such should be the case in ancient tongues? This, the Editor knows far better, in all probability, than myself; and is also aware that preconceived theories not only put _new_ ideas into our heads, but oftentimes eliminate correct ones! Now when we hear of an article being bought ”_with money_,” these two last words put, beyond all possibility of doubt, and beyond all the possibility of sophistry, the nature of the meaning of the word ”_bought_”--viz. ”_To acquire the property, right, or t.i.tle, to any thing, by paying a consideration, or an equivalent_--_to purchase; to acquire by paying a price_,” &c. [See Webster's American Dictionary].
The various pa.s.sages of Scripture quoted by the Editor in page 259, in no way whatever militate against the meaning of the word ”_buy_.”
Now the following simple questions may be put: 1st. Did G.o.d in any one pa.s.sage in the whole Bible forbid or prohibit the _purchase_ of men? Not in a single instance! 2d. Did G.o.d ever give directions respecting the purchase of men, and the treatment of men so purchased? He unquestionably did. [See Gen. xvii. 13, 27. Exodus xxi. 2-7, 26, 27.]
3d. Did G.o.d recognize such as were thus purchased with money, as the _property_ of their masters? Most undoubtedly. [See Exod. xx. 17. xxi.
20, 21, where the servant is actually denominated, ”HIS MONEY!”]
Having now proved the erroneousness of the two principles upon which the Editor of this Magazine built his arguments; and having demolished the two pillars which supported his whole edifice, the arguments and the edifice necessarily coming to naught, I shall end this chapter with a few remarks on a text of Scripture which Abolitionists adduce as a justification for encouraging, sheltering, and retaining, those who run away from their legal masters. This text is to be found in Deut. xxiii.