The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume I Part 25

We argue that they became servants _of their own accord_.

I. Because to become a servant in the family of an Israelite, was to abjure idolatry, to enter into covenant with G.o.d[A], be circ.u.mcised in token of it, bound to keep the Sabbath, the Pa.s.sover, the Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and to receive instruction in the moral and ceremonial law. Were the servants _forced_ through all these processes?

Was the renunciation of idolatry _compulsory_? Were they _dragged_ into covenant with G.o.d? Were they seized and circ.u.mcised by _main strength_?

Were they _compelled_ mechanically to chew, and swallow the flesh of the Paschal lamb, while they abhorred the inst.i.tution, spurned the laws that enjoined it, detested its author and its executors, and instead of rejoicing in the deliverance which it commemorated, bewailed it as a calamity, and cursed the day of its consummation? Were they _driven_ from all parts of the land three times in the year to the annual festivals? Were they drugged with instruction which they nauseated?

Goaded through a round of ceremonies, to them senseless and disgusting mummeries; and drilled into the tactics of a creed rank with loathed abominations? We repeat it, to became a _servant_, was to become a _proselyte_. And did G.o.d authorize his people to make proselytes, at the point of the sword? by the terror of pains and penalties? by converting men into _merchandise_? Were _proselyte and chattel_ synonymes, in the Divine vocabulary? Must a man be sunk to a _thing_ before taken into covenant with G.o.d? Was this the stipulated condition of adoption, and the sole pa.s.sport to the communion of the saints?

[Footnote A: Maimonides, who wrote in Egypt about seven hundred years ago, a contemporary with Jarchi, and who stands with him at the head of Jewish writers, gives the following testimony on this point: "Whether a servant be born in the power of an Israelite, or whether he be purchased from the heathen, the master is to bring them both into the covenant."

"But he that is in the _house_ is entered on the eighth day, and he that is bought with money, on the day on which his master receives him, unless the slave be _unwilling_. For if the master receive a grown slave, and he be _unwilling_, his master is to bear with him, to seek to win him over by instruction, and by love and kindness, for one year.

After which, should he _refuse_ so long, it is forbidden to keep him longer than a year. And the master must send him back to the strangers from whence he came. For the G.o.d of Jacob will not accept any other than the wors.h.i.+p of a willing heart"--Mamon, Hilcoth Mileth, Chap. 1st, Sec.

8th.

The ancient Jewish Doctors a.s.sert that the servant from the Strangers who at the close of his probationary year, refused to adopt the Jewish religion and was on that account sent back to his own people, received a _full compensation_ for his services, besides the payment of his expenses. But that _postponement_ of the circ.u.mcision of the foreign servant for a year (_or even at all_ after he had entered the family of an Israelite), of which the Mishnic doctors speak, seems to have been _a mere usage_. We find nothing of it in the regulations of the Mosaic system. Circ.u.mcision was manifestly a rite strictly _initiatory_.

Whether it was a rite merely _national_ or _spiritual_, or _both_, comes not within the scope of this inquiry. ]

II. We argue the voluntariness of servants from Deut. xxiii. 15, 16, "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."

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 flees 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 toward _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, "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 merely, 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 shall 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_."

III. We argue the voluntariness of servants from their 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 hill-tops, 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 hand-cuffed 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." Mean while, what became of the st.u.r.dy _handmaids_ left at home? What hindered them from marching 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. Their continuance in Jewish families depended upon the performance of various rites necessarily VOLUNTARY.

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 unleavened bread during the Pa.s.sover, or compounded the ingredients of the anointing oil, they would have been "cut off from the people;" _excommunicated_.

V. We infer the voluntariness of the servants of the Patriarchs from the impossibility of their having been held against their wills. 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 Abraham and Sarah contrived to hold fast so many thousand servants against their wills, we are left quite in the dark. 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 gentleman-kidnappers, suing for his patronage, volunteering to howl on their track, boasting their blood-hound scent, and pledging their "honor" to hunt down and "deliver up," _provided_ they had a description of the "flesh-marks," and were suitably stimulated by _pieces of silver_. 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.

VI. We infer that servants were voluntary, as there is no instance of an Israelitish master SELLING a servant. Abraham had thousands of servants, but seems never to have sold one. Isaac "grew until he became very great," and had "great store of servants." Jacob's youth was spent in the family of Laban, where he lived a servant twenty-one years.

Afterward he had a large number of servants. Joseph sent for Jacob to come into Egypt, "thou and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks and thy herds, and ALL THAT THOU HAST." Jacob took his flocks and herds but _no servants_. Gen xlv. 10; xlvii. 16. They 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 different thing to have a right to buy him of _another_ man[A].

[Footnote A: There is no evidence that masters had the power to dispose even the _services_ of their servants, as men hire out their laborers whom they employ by the year; but whether they had or not, affects not the argument.]

Though servants were not bought of their masters, yet young females were bought of their _fathers_. But their purchase as _servants_ was their betrothal as wives. Ex. xxi. 7, 8. "If a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do. If she please not her master WHO HATH BETROTHED HER TO HIMSELF, he shall let her be redeemed."[B]

[Footnote B: The comment of Maimonides on this pa.s.sage is as follows: "A Hebrew handmaid might not be sold but to one who laid himself under obligations, to espouse her to himself or to his son, when she was fit to be betrothed."--_Maimonides--Hilcoth--Obedim_, Ch. IV. Sec. XI.

Jarchi, on the same pa.s.sage, says, "He is bound to espouse her and take her to be his wife, for the _money of her purchase_ is the money of her espousal."]

VII. We infer that the Hebrew servant was voluntary in COMMENCING his service, because he was pre-eminently so IN CONTINUING it. If, at the year of release, it was the servant's _choice_ to remain with his master, law required his ear to be bored by the judges of the land, thus making it impossible for him to be held against his will. Yea more, his master was _compelled_ to keep him, however much he might wish to get rid of him.

VIII. The method prescribed for procuring servants, was an appeal to their choice. The Israelites were commanded to offer them a suitable inducement, and then leave them to decide. They might neither seize them by _force_, nor frighten them by _threats_, nor wheedle them by false pretences, nor _borrow_ them, nor _beg_ them; but they were commanded to buy them[A]; that is, they were to recognize the _right_ of the individuals to _dispose_ of their own services, and their right to _refuse all offers_, and thus oblige those who made them, _to do their own work_. Suppose all, with one accord, had _refused_ to become servants, what provision did the Mosaic law make for such an emergency?

NONE.

[Footnote A: The case of thieves, whose services were sold until they had earned enough to make rest.i.tution to the person wronged, and to pay the legal penalty, _stands by itself,_ and has nothing to do with the condition of servants.]

IX. Various incidental expressions corroborate the idea that servants became such by their own contract. Job xli. 4, is an ill.u.s.tration, "Will he (Leviathan) make a COVENANT with thee? wilt thou take him for a SERVANT forever?"

X. The transaction which made the Egyptians the SERVANTS OF PHARAOH was voluntary throughout. See Gen. xlvii. 18-26. Of their own accord they came to Joseph and said, "We have not aught left but our _bodies_ and our lands; _buy us_;" then in the 25th verse, "we will be servants to Pharaoh."

XI. We infer the voluntariness of servants, from the fact that RICH Strangers did not become servants. Indeed, so far were they from becoming servants themselves, that they bought and held Jewish servants.

Lev. xxv. 47.

XII. The sacrifices and offerings which ALL were required to present, were to be made VOLUNTARILY. Lev. i. 2, 3.

XIII. Mention is often made of persons becoming servants where they were manifestly and pre-eminently VOLUNTARY. As the Prophet Elisha. 1 Kings xix. 21; 2 Kings iii. 11. Elijah was his _master_. The word, translated master, is the same that is so rendered in almost every instance where masters are spoken of under the Mosaic and patriarchal systems. Moses was the servant of Jethro. Ex. iii. 1. Joshua was the servant of Moses.

Num. xi. 28. Jacob was the servant of Laban. Gen. xxix. 18-27.

IV.--WERE THE SERVANTS FORCED TO WORK WITHOUT PAY?

As the servants became and continued such of _their own accord_, it would be no small marvel if they _chose_ to work without pay. Their becoming servants, pre-supposes _compensation_ as a motive. That they _were paid_ for their labor, we argue,

I. Because G.o.d rebuked in thunder, the sin of using the labor of others without wages. "Wo unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; THAT USETH HIS NEIGHBOR'S SERVICE WITHOUT WAGES, and giveth him not for his work." Jer. xxii. 13. G.o.d here testifies that to use the service of others without wages is "unrighteousness" and p.r.o.nounces his "wo" against the doer of the "wrong." The Hebrew word _Rea_, translated _neighbor_, does not mean one man, or cla.s.s of men, in distinction from others, but any one with whom we have to do--all descriptions of persons, even those who prosecute us in lawsuits and enemies while in the act of fighting us--"As when a man riseth against his NEIGHBOR and slayeth him." Deut. xxii. 26. "Go not forth hastily to strive, lest thou know not what to do in the end thereof, when thy NEIGHBOR hath put thee to shame." Prov. xxv. 8. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy NEIGHBOR." Ex. xx. 16. "If any man come presumptuously upon his NEIGHBOR to slay him with guile." Ex.

xxi. 14, &c.

II. G.o.d testifies that in our duty to our fellow men, ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS hang upon this command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Our Savior, in giving this command, quoted _verbatim_ one of the laws of the Mosaic system. Lev. xix. 18. In the 34th verse of the same chapter, Moses applies this law to the treatment of Strangers, "The stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and THOU SHALT LOVE HIM AS THYSELF." If it be loving others _as_ ourselves, to make them work for us without pay; to rob them of food and clothing also, would be a stronger ill.u.s.tration still of the law of love! _Super_-disinterested benevolence! And if it be doing unto others as we would have them do to us, to make them work for _our own_ good alone, Paul should be called to order for his hard saying against human nature, especially for that libellous matter in Eph. v. 29, "No man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it and cherisheth it."

III. As persons became servants FROM POVERTY, we argue that they were compensated, since they frequently owned property, and sometimes a large amount. Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, gave David a princely present, "An hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of wine." 2 Sam. xvi. 1.

The extent of his possessions can be inferred from the fact, that though the father of fifteen sons, he had twenty servants. In Lev. xxv. 57-59, where a servant, reduced to poverty, sold himself, it is declared that he may be _redeemed_, either by his kindred, or by HIMSELF. Having been forced to sell himself from poverty, he must have acquired considerable property _after_ he became a servant. If it had not been common for servants to acquire property over which they had the control, the servant of Elisha would hardly have ventured to take a large sum of money, (nearly $3000[A]) from Naaman, 2 Kings v. 22, 23. As it was procured by deceit, he wished to conceal the means used in getting it; but if servants, could "own nothing, nor acquire any thing," to embark in such an enterprise would have been consummate stupidity. The fact of having in his possession two talents of silver, would of itself convict him of theft[B]. But since it was common for servants to own property he might have it, and invest or use it, without attracting special attention, and that consideration alone would have been a strong motive to the act. His master, while rebuking him for using such means to get the money, not only does not take it from him; but seems to expect that he would invest it in real estate, and cattle, and would procure servants with it. 2 Kings v. 26. We find the servant of Saul having money, and relieving his master in an emergency. 1 Sam. ix. 8. Arza, the servant of Elah, was the _owner of a house_. That it was somewhat magnificent, would be a natural inference from it's being a resort of the king. 1 Kings xvi. 9. The case of the Gibeonites, who after becoming servants, still occupied their cities, and remained in many respects, a distinct people for centuries; and that of the 150,000 Canaanites, the _servants_ of Solomon, who worked out their "tribute of bond-service" in levies, periodically relieving each other, are additional ill.u.s.trations of independence in the acquisition and owners.h.i.+p of property.

[Footnote A: Though we have not sufficient data to decide upon the _relative_ value of that sum, _then_ and _now_, yet we have enough to warrant us in saying that two talents of silver, had far more value _then_ than three thousand dollars have _now_.]

[Footnote B: Whoever heard of the slaves in our southern states stealing a large amount of money? They "_know how to take care of themselves_"

quite too well for that. When they steal, they are careful to do it on such a _small_ scale, or in the taking of _such things_ as will make detection difficult. No doubt they steal now and then a little, and a gaping marvel would it be if they did not. Why should they not follow in the footsteps of their masters and mistresses? Dull scholars indeed! if, after so many lessons from _proficients_ in the art, who drive the business by _wholesale_, they should not occasionally copy their betters, fall into the _fas.h.i.+on_, and try their hand in a small way, at a practice which is the _only permanent and universal_ business carried on around them! Ign.o.ble truly! never to feel the stirrings of high impulse, prompting to imitate the eminent pattern set before them in the daily vocation of "Honorables" and "Excellences," and to emulate the ill.u.s.trious examples of Doctors of Divinity, and _Right_ and _Very Reverends_! Hear President Jefferson's testimony. In his Notes on Virginia, pp. 207-8, speaking of slaves, he says, "That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must be ascribed to their _situation_, and not to any special depravity of the moral sense. It is a problem which I give the master to solve, whether the religious precepts against the violation of property were not framed for HIM as well as for his slave--and whether the slave may not as justifiably take a _little_ from one who has taken ALL from him, as he may _slay_ one who would slay him?"]

IV. Heirs.h.i.+p.--Servants frequently inherited their master's property; especially if he had no sons, or if they had dishonored the family.

Eliezer, the servant of Abraham; Ziba, the servant of Mephibosheth, Jarha the servant of Sheshan, and the _husbandmen_ who said of their master's son, "this is the HEIR, let us kill him, and the INHERITANCE WILL BE OURS," are ill.u.s.trations; also Prov. xvii. 2--"A wise servant shall have rule over a son that causeth shame, and SHALL HAVE PART OF THE INHERITANCE AMONG THE BRETHREN." This pa.s.sage gives servants precedence as heirs, even over the wives and daughters of their masters.

Did masters hold by force, and plunder of earnings, a cla.s.s of persons, from which, in frequent contingencies, they selected both heirs for their property, and husbands for their daughters?

V. ALL were required to present offerings and sacrifices. Deut. xvi. 15, 17, 2 Chron. xv. 9-11. Numb. ix. 13. Servants must have had permanently, the means of _acquiring_ property to meet these expenditures.

VI. Those Hebrew servants who went out at the seventh year, were provided by law with a large stock of provisions and cattle. Deut. xv.

11-14. "Thou shall furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy flour, and out of thy wine press, of that wherewith the Lord thy G.o.d hath blessed thee, thou shall give him[A]." If it be said that the servants from the Strangers did not receive a like bountiful supply, we answer, neither did the most honorable cla.s.s of _Israelitish_ servants, the free-holders; and for the same reason, _they did not go out in the seventh year_, but continued until the jubilee. If the fact that the Gentile servants did not receive such a _gratuity_ proves that they were robbed of their _earnings_, it proves that the most valued cla.s.s of _Hebrew_ servants were robbed of theirs also; a conclusion too stubborn for even pro-slavery masticators, however unscrupulous.

[Footnote A: The comment of Maimonides on this pa.s.sage is as follows--"Thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c. "That is to say, '_Loading, ye shall load him_,' likewise every one of his family, with as much as he can take with him--abundant benefits. And if it be avariciously asked, "How much must I give him?" I say unto _you, not less than thirty shekels_, which is the valuation of a servant, as declared in Ex. xxi. 32."--Maimonides, Hilcoth Obedim, Chap. ii. Sec. 3]

VII. The servants were BOUGHT. In other words, they received compensation in advance. Having shown, under a previous head, that servants _sold themselves_, and of course received the compensation for themselves, except in cases where parents hired out the time of their children till they became of age[B], a mere reference to the fact is all that is required for the purposes of this argument.

[Footnote B: Among the Israelites, girls became of age at twelve, and boys at thirteen years.]

VIII. We find masters at one time having a large number of servants, and afterwards none, without any intimation that they were sold. The wages of servants would enable them to set up in business for themselves.

Jacob, after being Laban's servant for twenty-one years, became thus an independent herdsman, and was the master of many servants. Gen. x.x.x. 43, x.x.xii. 15. But all these servants had left him before he went down into Egypt, having doubtless acquired enough to commence business for themselves. Gen. xlv. 10, 11; xlvi. 1-7, 32.

IX. G.o.d's testimony to the character of Abraham. Gen. xviii. 19. "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 JUDGEMENT."