Part 32 (2/2)
”Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which 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.
As though G.o.d had said, ”To deliver him up would be to recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him; his _fleeing_ shows his _choice_, proclaims his wrongs and his t.i.tle to protection; you shall not force him back and thus recognize the _right_ of the master to hold him in such a condition as induces him to flee to others for protection.” It may be said that this command referred only to the servants of _heathen_ masters in the surrounding nations. We answer: the terms of the command are unlimited. But the objection, if valid, would merely s.h.i.+ft the pressure of the difficulty to another point. Did G.o.d require them to protect the _free choice_ of a _single_ servant from the heathen, and yet _authorize_ the same persons, to crush the free choice of _thousands_ of servants from the heathen? Suppose a case. A _foreign_ servant escapes to the Israelites; G.o.d says, ”He shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_, in one of thy gates where it _liketh him_ best.” Now, suppose this same servant, instead of coming into Israel of his own accord, had been _dragged_ in by some kidnapper, who bought him of his master, and forced him into a condition against his will; would He who forbade such treatment of the stranger, who _voluntarily_ came into the land, sanction the same treatment of the _same person_, provided in addition to this last outrage, the previous one had been committed of forcing him into the nation against his will?
To commit violence on the free choice of a foreign servant is forsooth a horrible enormity, provided you _begin_ the violence _after_ he has come among you. But if you commit the first act on the _other side of the line_; if you begin the outrage by buying him from a third person against his will, and then tear him from home, drag him across the line into the land of Israel, and hold him as a slave--ah! that alters the case, and you may perpetrate the violence now with impunity! Would _greater_ favor have been shown to this new comer than to the old residents--those who had been servants in Jewish families perhaps for a generation? Were the Israelites commanded to exercise towards _him_, uncirc.u.mcised and out of the covenant, a justice and kindness denied to the mult.i.tudes who _were_ circ.u.mcised, and _within_ the covenant? But, the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition against their wills. In that case, the surrounding nations would adopt retaliatory measures, and become so many asylums for Jewish fugitives.
As these nations were not only on every side of them, but in their midst, such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men whose condition was a constant counteraction of will. Besides the same command which protected the servant from the power of his foreign _master_, protected him equally from the power of an _Israelite_. It was not, merely ”Thou shalt not deliver him unto his _master_,” but ”he shall dwell with thee, in that place which _he shall choose_ in one of thy gates where it liketh _him_ best.” Every Israelite was forbidden to put him in any condition _against his will_. What was this but a proclamation, that all who _chose_ to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased?
Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of _foreign_ servants only, there was no law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from the _Israelites_. _Property_ lost, and _cattle_ escaped, they were required to return, but not escaped _servants_. These verses contain, 1st, a command, ”Thou shalt not deliver,” &c., 2d. a declaration of the fugitive's right of _free choice_, and of G.o.d's will that he should exercise it at his own discretion; and 3d, a command guarding this right, namely, ”Thou shalt not oppress him,” as though G.o.d had said, ”If you restrain him from exercising his _own choice_, as to the place and condition of his residence, it is _oppression_, and shall not be tolerated.”[A]
[Footnote A: Perhaps it may be objected that this view of Deut. xxiii.
15, 16, makes nonsense of Ex. xxi. 27, which provides that if a man strikes out his servant's tooth he shall let him go free. Small favor indeed if the servant might set himself free whenever he pleased!
Answer--The former pa.s.sage might remove the servant from the master's _authority_, without annulling the master's legal claims upon the servant, if he had paid him in advance and had not received from him an equivalent, and this equally, whether his master were a Jew or a Gentile. The latter pa.s.sage, ”He shall let him go free _for his tooth's sake,”_ not only freed the servant from the master's authority, but also from any pecuniary claim which the master might have on account of having paid his wages in advance; and this _as a compensation_, for the loss of a tooth.]
III. THE SERVANTS HAD PECULIAR OPPORTUNITIES AND FACILITIES FOR ESCAPE.
Three times every year, all the males over twelve years, were required to attend the national feasts. They were thus absent from their homes not less than three weeks at each time, making nine weeks annually. As these caravans moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to intercept deserters?--a corporal's guard at each pa.s.s of the mountains, sentinels pacing the hilltops, and light-horse scouring the defiles? The Israelites must have had some safe contrivance for taking their ”_slaves_” three times in a year to Jerusalem and back. When a body of slaves is moved any distance in our _republic_, they are handcuffed and chained together, to keep them from running away, or beating their drivers' brains out. Was this the _Mosaic_ plan, or an improvement introduced by Samuel, or was it left for the wisdom of Solomon? The usage, doubtless, claims a paternity not less venerable and biblical! Perhaps they were lashed upon camels, and transported in bundles, or caged up and trundled on wheels to and fro, and while at the Holy City, ”lodged in jail for safe keeping,” the Sanhedrim appointing special religious services for their benefit, and their ”drivers”
officiating at ”ORAL instruction.” Meanwhile, what became of the st.u.r.dy _handmaids_ left at home? What hindered them from stalking off in a body? Perhaps the Israelitish matrons stood sentry in rotation round the kitchens, while the young ladies scoured the country, as mounted rangers, picking up stragglers by day, and patrolled the streets, keeping a sharp look-out at night!
IV. WILFUL NEGLECT OF CEREMONIAL RITES DISSOLVED THE RELATION.
Suppose the servants from the heathen had, upon entering Jewish families, refused circ.u.mcision; if _slaves_, how simple the process of emanc.i.p.ation! Their _refusal_ did the job. Or, suppose they had refused to attend the annual feasts, or had eaten leavened bread during the Pa.s.sover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing oil, or had touched a dead body, a bone, or a grave, or in any way had contracted ceremonial uncleanness, and refused to be cleansed with the ”water of separation,” they would have been ”cut off from the people;”
_excommunicated_. Ex. xii. 19; x.x.x. 33; Num. xix. 16.
V. SERVANTS OF THE PATRIARCHS NECESSARILY VOLUNTARY.
Abraham's servants are an ill.u.s.tration. At one time he had three hundred and eighteen _young men_ ”born in his house,” and many more _not_ born in his house. His servants of all ages were probably MANY THOUSANDS. How did Abraham and Sarah contrive to hold fast so many thousand servants against their wills? The most natural supposition is that the Patriarch and his wife ”took turns” in surrounding them! The neighboring tribes, instead of const.i.tuting a picket guard to hem in his servants, would have been far more likely to sweep them and him into captivity, as they did Lot and his household. Besides, there was neither ”const.i.tution” nor ”compact,” to send back Abraham's fugitives, nor a truckling police to pounce upon them, nor gentlemen-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering to howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their honour to hunt down and deliver up, provided they had a description of the ”flesh-marks,” and were suitably stimulated by pieces of silver.[A] Abraham seems also to have been sadly deficient in all the auxiliaries of family government, such as stocks, hand-cuffs, foot-chains, yokes, gags, and thumb-screws. His dest.i.tution of these patriarchal indispensables is the more afflicting, since he faithfully trained ”his household to do justice and judgment,” though so deplorably dest.i.tute of the needful aids.
[Footnote A: The following is a standing newspaper advertis.e.m.e.nt of one of these professional man-catchers, a member of the New York bar, who coolly plies his trade in the commercial emporium, sustained by the complacent greetings and courtesies of ”HONORABLE MEN!” ”IMPORTANT TO THE SOUTH.--F.H. Pettis, native of Orange County, Va., being located in the city of New York, in the practice of law, announces to his friends and the public in general, that he has been engaged as Counsel and Adviser in General for a party whose business it is in the northern cities to arrest and secure runaway slaves. He has been thus engaged for several years, and as the act of Congress alone governs now in this city, in business of this sort, which renders it easy for the recovery of such property, he invites post paid communications to him, inclosing a fee of $20 in each case, and a power of Attorney minutely descriptive of the party absconded, and if in the northern region, he, or she will soon be had.
”Mr. Pettis will attend promptly to all law business confided to him.
”N.B. New York City is estimated to contain 5,000 Runaway Slaves.
”PETTIS.” ]
Probably Job had even more servants than Abraham. See Job. i. 3, 14-19, and xlii. 12. That his thousands of servants staid with him entirely of their own accord, is proved by the _fact_ of their staying with him.
Suppose they had wished to quit his service, and so the whole army had filed off before him in full retreat, how could the patriarch have brought them to halt? Doubtless with his wife, seven sons, and three daughters for allies, he would have soon out-flanked the fugitive host and dragged each of them back to his wonted chain and staple.
But the impossibility of Job's servants being held against their wills, is not the only proof of their voluntary condition. We have his own explicit testimony that he had not ”withheld from the poor their _desire_.” Job. x.x.xi. 16. Of course he could hardly have made them live with him, and forced them to work for him against _their desire_.
When Isaac sojourned in the country of the Philistines he ”had _great store_ of servants.” And we have his testimony that the Philistines hated him, added to that of inspiration that they ”envied” him. Of course they would hardly volunteer to organize patroles and committees of vigilance to keep his servants from running away, and to drive back all who were found beyond the limits of his plantation without a ”pa.s.s!”
If the thousands of Isaac's servants were held against their wills, who held them?
The servants of the Jews, during the building of the wall of Jerusalem, under Nehemiah, may be included under this head. That they remained with their masters of their own accord, we argue from the fact, that the circ.u.mstances of the Jews made it impossible for them to _compel_ their residence and service. They were few in number, without resources, defensive fortifications, or munitions of war, and surrounded withal by a host of foes, scoffing at their feebleness and inviting desertion from their ranks. Yet so far from the Jews attempting in any way to restrain their servants, or resorting to precautions to prevent escape, they put arms into their hands, and enrolled them as a night-guard, for the defence of the city. By cheerfully engaging in this service and in labor by day, when with entire ease they might all have left their masters, marched over to the enemy, and been received with shoutings, the servants testified that their condition was one of _their own choice_, and that they regarded their own interests as inseparably identified with those of their masters. Neh. iv. 23.
VI. NO INSTANCES OF ISRAELITISH MASTERS SELLING SERVANTS. Neither Abraham nor Isaac seem ever to have sold one, though they had ”great store of servants.” Jacob was himself a servant in the family of Laban twenty-one years. He had afterward a large number of servants. Joseph invited him to come into Egypt, and to bring all that he had with him--”thou and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks and thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST.” Gen. xlv. 10. Jacob took his flocks and herds but _no servants_. Yet we are told that Jacob ”took his journey with _all that he had_.” Gen. xlvi. 1. And after his arrival in Egypt, Joseph said to Pharaoh ”my father, and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds and _all that they have_, are come.” Gen. xlvii.
1. The servants doubtless, served under their _own contracts_, and when Jacob went into Egypt, they _chose_ to stay in their own country.
The government might sell _thieves_, if they had no property, until their services had made good the injury, and paid the legal fine. Ex.
xxii. 3. But _masters_ seem to have had no power to sell their _servants_. To give the master a _right_ to sell his servant, would annihilate the servant's right of choice in his own disposal; but says the objector, ”to give the master a right to _buy_ a servant, equally annihilates the servant's _right of choice_.” Answer. It is one thing to have a right to buy a man, and a quite another thing to have a right to buy him of _another_ man.[A]
<script>