Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

state of slavery is attended with many evils, its removal is desirable. So say I; and so say all anti-slavery men, who are not abolitionists.

He reminds me, that when the Bible says that the slave shall go out, but his wife and his children shall remain and be his master's, it does not imply that the man was driven out of the house: he might “go out” of a state of bondage and yet remain in the house, and not be separated from his wife. But I did not say, that he was separated from his wife, but that although he went free, his wife and children remained slaves, the children following the condition of the mother, and not receiving liberty with the father.

The gentleman attempts to explain the fact, that the wife of the servant who went out free, under certain circumstances, did not go out with him, but remained in servitude, by stating it as one of the laws of Moses, that a servant bought of the heathen, if not converted in one year, was to be sent back to the heathen, but was not permitted to take with him his wife and children. There are two difficulties attending this explanation, viz: 1st. There is no such law as that of which he speaks. On what authority he has made the assertion, I cannot imagine. 2nd. The law of which I was speaking, relates to a Jew who had been sold for six years, not to a man bought from the heathen. If such a Jew married a servant of his purchaser, (one perhaps bought from the heathen) and had children by her; at the end of the six years, he went out free; but his wife, given him by his master, and the children born in the master's house, did not go out with him, but continued in servitude. Since therefore, the law in question related exclusively, to Jews, (not at all to servants bought of pagans) and to a term of service of six years, not of one, the gentleman's reply is a perfect failure.

I shall not detain the audience to discuss the views of Clarkson on slavery; because it is unnecessary. But let it be remembered, that the British Parliament adopted the plan of West India emancipation, not at the suggestion of Clarkson,

but under the influence of a public sentiment created by the great body of Philanthropists and Christians in England and Scotland. Were they abolitionists? Were slave-holders denounced, without regard to character or circumstances, as heinous sinners? Were the churches called upon to exclude all the slave-holders from their communion? These questions must be answered in the negative. The Christians and churches in England and Scotland generally, believed no such doctrine, and therefore resorted to no such practice. No man was excommunicated simply because he was a slave-holder. The slaves in the West Indies, then, were not emancipated by the principles of modern abolitionists, but by the principles of anti-slavery men whom they denounce. Under the influence of such men the British Parliament paid to the owners of slaves twenty millions of pounds, and placed the slaves under an apprenticeship of seven years.

I ought to notice, for a moment, the gentleman's remark that I represented Mr. Duncan as crazy. I did not say so. He excused the intemperate language and abominable sentiments of Foster on the ground that he was partially deranged. In reply to this, I said that his friend Mr. Duncan was at least as crazy as Foster, for his pamphlet contained precisely the same sentiments. But I hold neither of them to have been insane, nor do I charge the Cincinnati Abolition Society with being madmen because they sanctioned and reprinted Duncan's book. All I said, and now say, is that the one writer was as much a crazy man as the other, and both were about as sane as men can be, who hold the doctrines of abolitionism.

I have proved by language too plain to be misunderstood, that Hagar was the slave of Sarah; nor will all the gentleman has said or can say by way of ridicule, prove that she was any thing else. That she was a bondwoman, a slave, and that she fled from her mistress, because she punished her, are facts plainly stated in the Bible. If she was free, there was no sense in her running into the wilderness from her mistress. Nor was the angel a “ruffian” because he advised and directed her to return. He well knew, that her

When the gen

condition was far better in the family of Abraham, than in the wilderness. The running off of slaves does not always better their condition. A man residing at Vicksburgh had a slave who left him, and succeeded in getting safely to Canada ; but he was so far from experiencing the advantages he had expected, and which had been promised by his abolition advisers, that he voluntarily returned to his master. Other fugitive slaves have done the same thing. Our friends may yet learn, that by tempting slaves to run away they often place them in a worse condition, than that from which they have induced them to escape.

I will close this speech with a very brief recapitulation of the evidence proving the bondmen bought of the heathen by the Jews, to have been slaves, in the proper sense of the word. 1. They were bought with money. tleman reads in the newspapers, that a certain man in Kentucky bought a servant with money ; does he not at once conclude, that the servant bought is a slave? 2. The master was permitted by Moses' law to enforce obedience on the part of the servant by chastisement; and the reason given why the master should not be punished, if the servant survived a day or two after the chastisement, was, that "he is his money.Here the property relation is recog. nized, and is regarded as a protection of the slave, and as evidence that it was not the design of the master to kill him ; for it is not to be supposed, that in any ordinary case a man would deliberately aim to kill the servant who was his money. Such are the facts as they stand recorded in the word of God. The gentleman may, if he is so disposed, pronounce this law cruel and inhuman; but he cannot erase it from the volume which he professes to regard as inspired by God. Is such language as we find here employed, applicable to hired servants? Do men in Ohio regard their hired servants as their money? Do they claim the right to enforce obedience by chastisement with the rod. 3. The word used, and translated servant and bondman is the proper Hebrew word for slave ; it is the word the Hebrews uniformly used, when they spoke of slaves. If the gentleman should deny this, will he please to tell us what is the proper word for slave in the Hebrew language? I affirm, that if the word eved does not mean slave, the Hebrews, though surrounded by slavery, had no word in their language by which they could designate it. 4. The Hebrew has a word which definitely signifies a hired servant; and that word is placed in contrast with the eved or bondman. The sakir is the hired servant; and the eved is the bondman or slave. 5. Finally those servants are declared to be the possession of their owners, and inheritence of their children-language never employed concerning hired servants, but constantly employed with regard to land and other property.

The fact, then, is clearly established, if language can establish it, that God did recognize the relation of master and slave as, under the circumstances, lawful, and did give express permission to the Jews to purchase slaves from the heathen, and hold them. To understand the language on which I have been remarking, as descriptive of hired seryants, is to disregard the plainest principles of language. The gentleman must admit, that God gave the Jews permission, under certain circumstances, to form the relation which he denounces as in itself sinful; or he must deny that the Old Testament is the word of God. [Time expired.

Friday Evening, 7 o'clock. [MR. BLANCHARD'S ELEVENTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators, and Gentlemen and Ladies, Fellow

Citizens :

At the commencement of my remarks, it is proper for me to say that I render cordial thanks to the brother opposed to me, for his kindness in consenting to adjourn this discussion till Monday. I have asked this, in consequence of my health, which is infirm from a cold contracted a few days before the debate began.

In my last speech of the afternoon, I said that the abolition of slavery in the British colonies, was the fruit of the principles of abolitionism: and my quoted proofs fully sustained my proposition. My brother objects that the abolition of West India slavery was not immediate, but that an apprenticeship of seven years was substituted for slavery. This is partly true, and partly erroneous. In Antigua, and the Bermudas, emancipation was immediate, and took in. stant effect, August 1st, 1834. It is true, that against the wishes of many leaders of the abolition movement in Great Britain, Parliament refused to grant immediate abolition throughout the colonies, and substituted a clumsy apprenticeship of seven years, which, however, worked so badly, that they were glad to abolish it two years before the legal time expired.

My friend also tells you that a hundred thousand dollars were paid as a compensation to the owners for their slaves.

This, also, was not in accordance with the views of many leading abolitionists. They said that if slavery had been profitable, the slave-holders had enjoyed the profits of it long enough-if not profitable, abolition was no sacrifice to them. They, however, were willing to accept the bill enacted by Parliament, seeing it struck out at once, the principle of chattelism, and speedily resulted in perfect emancipation.

I now call your attention to what I call the direct argument (and all my arguments are from the Bible, or are intended to be) to show that the relation of master and slave is a sinful relation. I have showed (I think) slave-holding to be “ in itself sinful,” which was the first part of the question. The latter part of the question respects the RELATION. I wish therefore, to show that the relation, not the practice, only, of slave-holding, but the relation of master and slave is sinful. I have duly advertised the audience of my one and a half hours speech in the Old Testament servitude and a speech of similar length on the New Testament view of slavery. Mr. Rice will have an opportunity to reply to

« AnteriorContinuar »