The Anti-Slavery Examiner
Chapter 18 : (6.) _They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time_,

(6.) _They seem to have had in a considerable measure, the disposal of their own time_,--Ex. xxiii. 4, and iii. 16, 18, and xii. 6, and ii. 9, and iv. 27, 29-31. Also to have practised the fine arts. Ex. x.x.xii. 4, and x.x.xv. 32-35.

(7.) _They were all armed_. Ex. x.x.xii. 27.

(8.) _All the females seem to have known something of domestic refinements; they were familiar with instruments of music, and skilled in the working of fine fabrics_. Ex. xv. 20, and 35, 36.

(9.) _They held their possessions independently, and the Egyptians seem to have regarded them as inviolable_. This we infer from the fact that there is no intimation that the Egyptians dispossessed them of their habitations, or took away their flocks, or herds, or crops, or implements of agriculture, or any article of property.

(10.) _Service seems to have been exacted from none but adult males_.

Nothing is said from which the bond service of females could be inferred; the hiding of Moses three months by his mother, and the payment of wages to her by Pharaoh's daughter, go against such a supposition. Ex. ii. 29.

(11.) So far from being fed upon a given allowance, their food was abundant, and had great variety. "They sat by the flesh-pots," and "did eat bread to the full." Ex. xvi. 3, and xxiv. 1, and xvii. 5, and iv.

29, and vi. 14. Also, "they did eat fish freely, and cuc.u.mbers, and melons, and leeks, and onions, and garlic." Num. xi. 4, 5, and x. 18, and xx. 5.

(12.) _That the great body of the people were not in the service of the Egyptians, we infer_ (1) from the fact, that the extent and variety of their own possessions, together with such a cultivation of their crops as would provide them with bread, and such care of their immense flocks and herds, as would secure their profitable increase, must have furnished constant employment for the main body of the nation.

(2.) During the plague of darkness, G.o.d informs us that "ALL the children of Israel had light in their dwellings." We infer that they were _there_ to enjoy it.

(3.) It seems improbable that the making of brick, the only service named during the latter part of their sojourn in Egypt, could have furnished permanent employment for the bulk of the nation. See also Ex.

iv. 29-31.

Besides, when Eastern nations employed tributaries, it was, as now, in the use of the levy, requiring them to furnish a given quota, drafted off periodically, so that comparatively but a small portion of the nation would be absent _at any one time_.

Probably there was the same requisition upon the Israelites for one-fifth part of the proceeds of their labor, that was laid upon the Egyptians. See Gen. xlvii. 24, 26. Instead of taking it out of their _crops_, (Goshen being better for _pasturage_ than crops) they exacted it of them in brick making; and it is quite probable that only the _poorer_ Israelites were required to work for the Egyptians at all, the wealthier being able to pay their tribute, in money. See Exod. iv.

27-31.

This was the bondage in Egypt. Contrast it with American slavery. Have our slaves "very much cattle," and "a mixed mult.i.tude of flocks and herds?" Do they live in commodious houses of their own? Do they "_sit by the flesh-pots_," "_eat fish freely_," and "_eat bread to the full_?" Do they live in a separate community, at a distance from their masters, in their distinct tribes, under their own rulers and officers? Have they the exclusive occupation of an extensive and fertile tract of country for the culture of their own crops, and for rearing immense herds of _their own_ cattle--and all these held independently of their masters, and regarded by them as inviolable? Are our female slaves free from all exactions of labor and liabilities of outrage?--and whenever employed, are they paid wages, as was the Israelitish woman, when employed by the king's daughter? Exod. ii. 9. Have the females entirely, and the males to a considerable extent, the disposal of their own time? Have they the means for cultivating social refinements, for practising the fine arts, and for intellectual and moral improvement?

THE ISRAELITES, UNDER THE BONDAGE OF EGYPT, ENJOYED ALL THESE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES. True, "_their lives were made bitter, and all the service wherein they made them serve was with rigor_." But what was that, when compared with the incessant toil of American slaves, the robbery of all their time and earnings, and even the "power to own any thing, or acquire any thing"--the "quart of corn a day," the legal allowance of food[A]!--their _only_ clothing for one half the year, "_one_ s.h.i.+rt and _one_ pair of pantaloons[B]!"--the _two hours and a half_ only for rest and refreshment in the twenty-four[C]!--their dwellings, _hovels_, unfit for human residence, commonly with but one apartment, where both s.e.xes and all ages herd promiscuously at night, like the beasts of the field.

Add to this, the mental ignorance, and moral degradation; the daily separations of kindred, the revelries of l.u.s.t, the lacerations and baptisms of blood, sanctioned by the laws of the South, and patronized by its pubic sentiment. What, we ask, was the bondage of Egypt when compared with this? And yet for _her_ oppression of the poor, G.o.d smote her with plagues, and trampled her as the mire, till she pa.s.sed away in his wrath, and the place that knew her in her pride, knew her no more.

Ah! "_I have seen the afflictions of my people, and I have heard their groanings, and am come down to deliver them_." HE DID COME, and Egypt sank, a ruinous heap, and her blood closed over her.

[Footnote A: The law of North Carolina. See Haywood's Manual, 524-5]

[Footnote B: The law of Louisiana. See Martin's Digest, 610.]

[Footnote C: The whole amount of time secured by the law of Louisiana.

See Act of July 7, 1806. Martin's Digest, 610-12]

If such was G.o.d's retribution for the oppression of heathen Egypt, of how much sorer punishment shall a Christian people be thought worthy, who cloak with religion, a system, in comparison with which the bondage of Egypt dwindles to nothing?

Let those believe who can, that G.o.d gave his people permission to hold human beings, robbed of _all_ their rights, while he threatened them with wrath to the uttermost, if they practised the _far lighter_ oppression of Egypt--which robbed its victims of only the _least_ and _cheapest_ of their rights, and left the _females_ unplundered even of these. What! _Is G.o.d divided against himself_? When he had just turned Egypt into a funeral pile; while his curse yet blazed upon her unburied dead, and his bolts still hissed amidst her slaughter, and the smoke of her torment went upwards because she had "ROBBED THE POOR," did He license the VICTIMS of robbery to rob the poor of ALL? As _Lawgiver_, did he _create_ a system tenfold more grinding than that, for which he had just hurled Pharaoh headlong, and cloven down his princes, and overwhelmed his hosts, and blasted them with His thunder, till "h.e.l.l was moved to meet them at their coming?"

Having touched upon the general topics which we design to include in this inquiry, we proceed to examine various Scripture facts and pa.s.sages, which will doubtless be set in array against the foregoing conclusions.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

The advocates of slavery are always at their wits end when they try to press the Bible into their service. Every movement shows that they are hard-pushed. Their odd conceits and ever varying s.h.i.+fts, their forced constructions, lacking even plausibility, their bold a.s.sumptions, and blind guesswork, not only proclaim their _cause_ desperate, but themselves. Some of the Bible defences thrown around slavery by ministers of the Gospel, do so torture common sense, Scripture, and historical fact, that it were hard to tell whether absurdity, fatuity, ignorance, or blasphemy, predominates, in compound. Each strives so l.u.s.tily for the mastery, it may be set down a drawn battle.

How often has it been set up in type, that the color of the negro is the _Cain-mark_, propagated downward. Doubtless Cain's posterity started an opposition to the ark, and rode out the flood with flying streamers! Why should not a miracle be wrought to point such an argument, and fill out for slaveholders a Divine t.i.tle-deed, vindicating the ways of G.o.d to men?

OBJECTION 1. "_Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren_." Gen. i. 25.

This prophecy of Noah is the _vade mec.u.m_ of slaveholders, and they never venture abroad without it. It is a pocket-piece for sudden occasion--a keepsake to dote over--a charm to spell-bind opposition, and a magnet to attract "whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie."

But closely as they cling to it, "cursed be Canaan" is a poor drug to stupify a throbbing conscience--a mocking lullaby, vainly wooing slumber to unquiet tossings, and crying "Peace, be still," where G.o.d wakes war, and breaks his thunders.

Those who plead the curse on Canaan to justify negro slavery, _a.s.sume_ all the points in debate.

1. That the condition prophesied was _slavery_, rather than the mere _rendering of service_ to others, and that it was the bondage of _individuals_ rather than the condition of a _nation tributary_ to another, and in _that_ sense its _servant_.

2. That the _prediction_ of crime _justifies_ it; that it grants absolution to those whose crimes fulfil it, if it does not transform the crimes into _virtues_. How piously the Pharaohs might have quoted G.o.d's prophecy to Abraham, "_Thy seed shall be in bondage, and they shall afflict them for four hundred years_." And then, what _saints_ were those that crucified the Lord of glory!

3. That the Africans are descended from Canaan. Whereas Africa was peopled from Egypt and Ethiopia, and Mizraim settled Egypt, and Cush, Ethiopia. See Gen. x. 15-19, for the location and boundaries of Canaan's posterity. So on the a.s.sumption that African slavery fulfils the prophecy, a curse p.r.o.nounced upon one people, is quoted to justify its infliction upon another. Perhaps it may be argued that Canaan includes all Ham's posterity. If so, the prophecy has not been fulfilled. The other sons of Ham settled the Egyptian and a.s.syrian empires, and conjointly with Shem the Persian, and afterward, to some extent, the Grecian and Roman. The history of these nations gives no verification of the prophecy. Whereas the history of Canaan's descendants, for more than three thousand years, is a record of its fulfilment. First, they were made tributaries by the Israelites. Then Canaan was the servant of Shem.

Afterward, by the Medes and Persians. Then Canaan was the servant of Shem, and in part of the other sons of Ham. Afterward, by the Macedonians, Grecians, and Romans, successively. Then Canaan was the servant of j.a.phet, mainly, and secondarily of the other sons of Ham.

Finally, they were subjected by the Ottoman dynasty, where they yet remain. Thus Canaan is _now_ the servant of Shem and j.a.phet and the other sons of Ham.

But it may still be objected, that though Canaan is the only one _named_ in the curse, yet the 22d and 23d verses show that it was p.r.o.nounced upon the posterity of Ham in general. "_And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without_."--Verse 22. In verse 23, Shem and j.a.phet cover their father with a garment. Verse 24, "_And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his YOUNGER son had done unto him, and said_," &c.

It is argued that this younger son cannot be _Canaan_, as he was not the _son_, but the _grandson_ of Noah, and therefore it must be _Ham_. We answer, whoever that "_younger son_" was, or whatever he did, _Canaan_ alone was named in the curse. Besides, the Hebrew word _Ben_, signifies son, grandson, great-grandson, or _any one_ of the posterity of an individual. Gen. xxix. 5, "_And he said unto them, Know ye Laban, the_ SON _of Nahor_?" Yet Laban was the _grandson_ of Nahor. Gen. xxiv. 15, 29. In 2 Sam. xix. 24, it is said, "_Mephibosheth, the_ SON _of Saul, came down to meet the king_." But Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan, and the _grandson_ of Saul. 2 Sam. ix. 6. So Ruth iv. 17. "_There is a_ SON _born to Naomi_." This was the son of Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi. Ruth iv. 13, 15. So 2 Sam. xxi. 6. "_Let seven men of his (Saul's)_ SONS _be delivered unto us_," &c. Seven of Saul's _grandsons_ were delivered up. 2 Sam. xxi. 8, 9. So Gen. xxi. 28, "_And hast not suffered me to kiss my_ SONS _and my daughters_;" and in the 55th verse, "_And early in the morning Laban rose up and kissed his_ SONS," &c.

These were his _grandsons_. So 2 Kings ix. 20, "_The driving of Jehu, the_ SON _of Nims.h.i.+_." So 1 Kings xix. 16. But Jehu was the _grandson_ of Nims.h.i.+. 2 Kings ix. 2, 14. Who will forbid the inspired writer to use the _same_ word when speaking of _Noah's_ grandson?

Further, if Ham were meant what propriety in calling him the _younger_ son? The order in which Noah's sons are always mentioned, makes Ham the _second_, and not the _younger_ son. If it be said that Bible usage is variable, and that the order of birth is not always preserved in enumerations; the reply is, that, enumeration in the order of birth, is the _rule_, in any other order the _exception_. Besides, if the younger member of a family, takes precedence of older ones in the family record, it is a mark of pre-eminence, either in original endowments, or providential instrumentality. Abraham, though sixty years younger than his eldest brother, and probably the youngest of Terah's sons, stands first in the family genealogy. Nothing in Ham's history warrants the idea of his pre-eminence; besides, the Hebrew word _Hakkaton_, rendered _younger_, means the _little, small_. The same word is used in Isaiah xl. 22. "A LITTLE ONE _shall become a thousand_." Also in Isaiah xxii.

24. "_All vessels of_ SMALL _quant.i.ty_." So Psalms cxv. 13. "_He will bless them that fear the Lord, both_ SMALL _and great_." Also Exodus xviii. 22. "_But every_ SMALL _matter they shall judge_." It would be a perfectly literal rendering of Gen. ix. 24, if it were translated thus, "when Noah knew what his little son[A], or grandson (_Beno hakkaton_) had done unto him, he said, cursed be Canaan," &c.

[Footnote A: The French language in this respect follows the same a.n.a.logy. Our word _grandson_ being in French, _pet.i.t fils_, (little son.)]

Even if the Africans were the descendants of Canaan, the a.s.sumption that their enslavement is a fulfilment of this prophecy, lacks even plausibility, for, only a mere _fraction_ of the inhabitants of Africa have at any one time been the slaves of other nations. If the objector say in reply, that a large majority of the Africans have always been slaves at _home_, we answer, 1st. _It is false in point of fact_, though zealously bruited often to serve a turn. 2d. _If it were true_, how does it help the argument? The prophecy was, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren" not unto _himself_!

OBJECTION II.--"_If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money_." Exodus xxi. 20, 21.

Arguments drawn from the Mosaic system in support of slavery, originate in a misconception both of its genius, _as a whole_, and of the design and scope of its most simple provisions. The verses quoted above, afford an ill.u.s.tration in point.

What was the design of this regulation? Was it to grant masters an indulgence to beat servants with impunity? and an a.s.surance, that if they beat them to death, the offence would not be _capital_? This is substantially what some modern Doctors tell us. What Deity do such men wors.h.i.+p? Some blood-gorged Moloch, enthroned on human hecatombs, and snuffing carnage for incense? Did He who thundered out from Sinai's flames, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," offer a bounty on _murder_? Whoever a.n.a.lyzes the Mosaic system--the condition of the people for whom it was made--their inexperience in government--ignorance of judicial proceedings--laws of evidence, &c., will find a moot court in session, trying law points--setting definitions, or laying down rules of evidence, in almost every chapter. Numbers x.x.xv. 10-22; Deuteronomy xi.

11, and xix. 4-6; Leviticus xxiv. 19-22; Exodus, xxi. 18, 19, are a few, out of many cases stated, with tests furnished by which to detect _the intent_, in actions brought before them. The detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable the judges to get at the _motive_ of the action, and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill.

1. "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Numbers x.x.xv. 16, 18. It was a _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant dies _under his hand_, then the unfitness of the instrument, instead of being evidence in his favor, is point blank against him; for, to strike him with a _rod_ until he _dies_, argues a _great many_ blows laid on with _great_ violence, and this kept up to the death-gasp, establishes the point of _intent to kill_. Hence the sentence, "He shall _surely_ be punished." The case is plain and strong. But if he continued _a day or two_, the _length of time that he lived_, together with the _kind_ of instrument used, and the fact that the master had a pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is his _money_,") all, made out a strong case of circ.u.mstantial evidence, showing that the master did not _design_ to kill; and required a corresponding decision and sentence. A single remark on the word "punished:" in Exodus xxi. 20, 21, the Hebrew word here rendered _punished_, (_Nak.u.m_,) is _not so rendered in another instance_. Yet it occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament--in almost every instance, it is translated _avenge_--in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our translation, the p.r.o.noun preceding it, refers to the _master_--the _master_ in the 21st verse, is to be _punished_, and in the 22d _not_ to be punished; whereas the preceding p.r.o.noun refers neither to the _master_ nor to the _servant_, but to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse--"If he continues a day or two," his death shall not be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, for in that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_, as in the first instance. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is stated, not intentional, nor extending to life or limb, a mere accidental hurt, for which the injurer is to pay _a sum of money_; and yet our translators employ the same phraseology in both places. One, an instance of deliberate, wanton, _killing by piecemeal_. The other and _accidental_, and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they say the same thing! "_He shall surely be punished_." Now, just the difference which common sense would expect to find in such cases, where G.o.d legislates, is strongly marked in the original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, G.o.d says, "It (the death) shall surely be _avenged_," (_Nak.u.m_,) that is, _the life of the wrong doer shall expiate the crime_. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators, whether individuals or communities, to _destruction_. In the case of the _unintentional_ injury, in the following verse, G.o.d says, "He shall surely be" _fined_, (_Aunash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning of the word _Aunash_, is to lay a fine.

It is used in Deut. xxii. 19. They shall _amerce_ him in one hundred shekels," and in 2 Chron. x.x.xvi. 3--"He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of gold.--This is the general use of the word, and its primary signification. That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor amercing the master in damages, but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer.

1. From the _Bible usage_ of the word Nakam. See Genesis iv. 24; Joshua x. 13; Judges xv. 7-xvi. 28; 1 Samuel xiv. 24-xviii. 25-xxv. 31; 2 Samuel iv. 8; Judges v. 2; 1 Samuel xxv. 26-33, &c. &c.

2. From the express statute in such case provided. Leviticus xxiv. 17.