what the labourer considers a full equivalent for his work; he receives what is to him of equal value with the wages. (5.) This possession of property in the slave involves the right to sell him as the master pleases. It is not a right merely to dispose of his service for a term of years or for life; it is a right to sell the slave himself. He sets the slave up at auction-not his services; he disposes of the slave, in his will, by name-not of his unexpired term of service. He disposes of his person, his skill, his physical strength-all that he has that can be of value to himself or to another. He retains nothing to himself; he reserves no rights for the slave. This disposal of property is in all respects as absolute and entire as it is where a man sells a farm, a mill, or a horse. He may, moreover, sell or alienate him in any way he pleases, whether by a private bargain, by auction, or by a testamentary disposition as is the case in any other property. He may sell him by sundering any ties which bind him to others; regardless of any remonstrances of father or mother; and irrespective of any obligations which the slave may feel himself under to a wife, a sister, or a child. "This claim," - says the Biblical Repertory, "is transferable, and is consequently liable for the debts of the owner, and subject to his disposal by will or otherwise.' This is the common view of slavery the world over, and on the subject of selling him the master feels himself under no more restrictions than he does in selling his dromedary or ox. That these are correct views of the nature of slavery, will be apparent from a brief reference to some of the existing laws on the subject, showing in what light slaves are regarded in the statutes of the slaveholding states in our country. Judge Stroud, in his "Sketch of the Laws respecting Slavery," says, "The cardinal principle of slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked among sentient beings, but among thingsobtains as undoubted law in all these [the slave] states." The law of South Carolina says, "Slaves shall be claimed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law, to be CHATTELS PERSONAL in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, TO ALL INTENTS, CONSTRUCTIONS, AND PURPOSES WHATSOEVER. The Louisiana code says, "A slave is one who is in the power of the master to whom he belongs; the master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labour; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing but what must belong to his master." So the Hon. J. K. Paulding, in his work on slavery, says, "Being property, slaves may be bought and sold by persons capable of buying and selling other property. They are held to be personal estate, and as such may be levied upon and sold for the debts of the owner."§ This claim of property is not only asserted in all the books that treat of slavery, and in all the laws that regulate the system, but enters into the every-day view of the subject, and the practical working of the system. As a matter of fact slaves are regarded and treated as property, or as "chattels." They are bought or are inherited as such. They are advertised for sale by auction, or otherwise, as such. They are disposed of by will as such; they may be seized as such, by a sheriff, and sold for the payment of debts. And when a slave is so disposed of, it is in the same way as any other property. There are no reserved rights to him as a man. There is no specification in the advertisement or the instrument of sale, that he differs from any other property; there is no recognition of the fact that in any respect he is a human being, or is to be treated as such. There is no condition in the sale that any of his rights as a man, as a father, a brother, or a citizen, shall be regarded. It is not specified or implied that he shall exercise any of the privileges of a freeman; that he may himself ever hold property; that he shall be taught to read; that the cultivation * Brev. Dig. 229. Rev. Code, vol. i, p. 431, s. 47. † Civ. Code, art. 35. of his intellect shall be regarded; that he shall have the liberty of worshipping God. None of his rights or feelings as a son, a husband, or a father are consulted in the conditions of the sale, but his new master, like his old one, may sunder any one of these relations as soon as he pleases, and for any cause that he chooses. THE TRUE QUESTION STATED. The true question now is, whether this is a good institution, and one which God designed to commend and perpetuate. Is it an institution for the maintenance of which He has made arrangements in his word, and which has his sanction? Is it a system in accordance with the spirit of the religion which he has revealed, and which that religion is intended to keep up in the world? Is it such an arrangement in society that the fair influence of that religion will tend to perpetuate it, as it will the relations of husband and wife, and of parent and child? Or is it an institution which God regards as undesirable and evil in its nature and tendency, and which he intends to have removed from the world? Would the fair application of the principles of his religion perpetuate it on the earth, or remove it as an evil thing? This is the fair question now before us. According to the references made to the Scriptures, by most of the writers already alluded to, they would regard the former of these opinions as the true one-that slavery has the sanction of God; that he has from the beginning fostered and patronised the institution; that he legislates for its continuance, as he does for the relation of parent and child; and that the principles of his religion do not conflict with its perpetuity on the earth. Is this the true position to be taken on the subject? In this view of the real question, it is not necessary to agitate the inquiry whether slavery is a malum in se. That question is one that has usually given rise only to perplexing logomachies, and that has contributed little to determine the true issue in the inquiry. If it shall appear, in the course of this discussion, that slavery is an institution which God has never originated by positive enactment; that his legislation has tended from the beginning to mitigate its evils; that he has by his Providential dealings frowned upon it; that he has asserted great principles in his word, which cannot be carried out without destroying the system; that he has enjoined on man, in the various relations of life, certain duties, of which slavery prevents the performance; that slavery engenders inevitably certain bad passions, which are wholly contrary to religion; and that it is the tendency and the design of the Christian religion, when fairly applied, to abolish the system, it will be apparent that slavery is a moral wrong. God does not legislate against any thing that is good. His own Providential dealings are not against that which is desirable in society. His Gospel is not designed to abolish any good institution; and if it shall appear that Christianity has such provisions as are designed to remove slavery, the divine view in relation to it will be clear. To show what is that view, is the sole design of this discussion. CHAPTER III. Slavery in the time of the Patriarchs. IN entering directly upon the question whether slavery, as before defined, is in accordance with the will of God, and is an institution which he designs should be perpetuated for the good of society, like the other relations of life contributing to the perfection of a community, it is natural to inquire whether any thing can be determined on this question from the practice of the patriarchs. The true inquiry here is, whether the patriarchs were holders of slaves in such a sense that it can be properly inferred that God regards slavery as a good and desirable institution. The support which the advocates of slavery derive from the conduct of the patriarchs, has already been referred to. The reader will recall the quotations from the Presbyteries of Hopewell, Harmony, Charleston Union, and Tombecbee; from the Biblical Repertory, and Paulding's work on slavery. The example of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is adduced as decisive on the point. Thus, as an instance, the Presbytery of Tombecbee, in their correspondence with the General Conference of Maine,* say, "On the subject of slavery we are willing to be guided by the Bible, the unerring word of truth." "In the Bible the state of slavery is clearly recognised-Abraham, the friend of God, had slaves born in his house, and bought with his money. sessed slaves, as is evident from Gen. xxvi. 14. slaves, without the least remorse of conscience." Fullert appeals with the utmost confidence to the fact that God indulged Abraham in the practice of slavery, in proof that * Pp. 12, 13. Isaac posJacob held So also Dr. Letters to Dr. Wayland, pp. 175, 176. |