Myths of American Slavery
Page 9
Many of the laws by which in our country slavery is regulated are defective, and ought to be amended; or unjust, and ought to be repealed.... The laws may be most unjust, and yet the relation may not be in itself sinful.
3. The question is not whether masters may treat their servants cruelly, either by failing to give them abundant food and raiment, by inflicting cruel chastisement, by separating husbands and wives, parents and children, or by neglecting to give them religious instructions. A master, a father, or a husband, may be cruel. There is no relation in human society, that may not be abused by wicked men. But is the master obliged to treat his slaves cruelly? Must he of necessity starve them, or abuse them? Is he compelled, because he is a master, to separate husbands and wives? Or to neglect their religious instruction, and leave their minds in pagan darkness? No-he may treat them with all kindness, providing abundant food and raiment; he may sacredly regard the marriage relation among them; he may have them carefully instructed in the truths of the glorious gospel; and yet he may sustain to them the relation of master.
Were I to employ my time in searching for them, I could furnish thousands of examples of inhuman cruelty in connection with the conjugal and parental relations, in the free States, as well as elsewhere. Will the gentleman denounce these relations because they are abused? because wicked men take advantage of them to tyrannize over the weak? True, cruelty is often found in connection with slavery; but it is equally true that many slaveholders treat their slaves with uniform kindness, as rational, accountable, immortal beings. We are not discussing the question whether cruelty of any kind is right.
4. The question before us is not whether it is sinful to speculate in human beings. The slave-trader is looked upon by decent men in the slave-holding States with disgust. None but a monster could inflict anguish upon unoffending men for the sake of accumulating wealth. But since Mr. B. feels so deeply on account of the multiplication of slave-gangs in Kentucky, it may be well for him to know, that this is one of the sad effects of the doctrine and practice of the abolitionists. They have sought to make the slaves discontented in their condition; they have succeeded in decoying many from their masters, and running them to Canada. Consequently masters, for fear of losing their slaves, sell them to the hard-hearted trader; and they are marched to the South. Thus they rivet the chains on the poor slave, and aggravate every evil attending his condition. Such is human nature, that men provoked by such a course of conduct as that of the abolitionists, will, in many instances, resort to greater severity; and upon those who thus provoke men, rests in no small degree the responsibility of increasing the suffering of the slaves.
5. The question before us, is not whether it is right for a man to treat his slaves as mere chattels personal, not as sentient beings. The Scriptures condemn cruelty not only toward man, but toward irrational animals. "A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast." A mail ought to be excluded from the church, who would treat his horse inhumanly. Even the civil law would punish him for such cruelty. Yet it is not a sin to own a horse.
Christianity prescribes the duties of both masters and servants. The servant is required to render obedience to his master with all fidelity "as unto Christ;" and the master is required to treat his slaves with all kindness, even as rational, accountable, immortal beings. Cruelty toward slaves, would be a just ground for his exclusion from the privileges of the church. On this subject the law of the Presbyterian church is clear and explicit. Sessions and Presbyteries were enjoined by the General Assembly of 1818, to prevent all cruelty in the treatment of servants; and to subject those chargeable with it to the discipline of the church. Let the abolitionists prove, that any member of our church has been guilty of cruelty toward his slaves, and I pledge my word, he will be disciplined. Let it be tried, and if it be ascertained, that the Presbyterian church will not exclude men from her pale, who are guilty of such conduct, then I will denounce her.
6. The question is not whether a great amount of sin is in fact committed in connection with slave-holding. This is admitted. Wicked men act out their wickedness in every relation in life. Wicked husbands in ten thousand instances treat their wives most cruelly; and ungodly parents inflict great suffering on their children. No wonder, then, that in this relation a great amount of sin is committed. But the question is not how much men can sin in this relation, but whether the relation is in itself sinful, whether a man is to be denounced as a heinous sinner, simply because he is a master. Abolitionists dwell upon, and magnify the sins of men committed in this relation; but the relation may, and in multitudes of instances does exist without the oppression and cruelty of which they speak. Consequently the sin is not in the relation itself.
7. Nor is the question before us, whether slavery is an evil, a very great evil, which should be removed as speedily as it can be done by the operation of correct principles. This I cheerfully admit. But there are many evils and great evils in connection with human society, which cannot be immediately removed. Whilst, therefore, I admit that slavery is an evil, I utterly protest against upturning the very foundation of society in order to abolish it. Shall we do evil that good may come? The question, I repeat, is not whether slavery is an evil, but whether we are to denounce and excommunicate every individual who is so unfortunate as to be connected with it.
8. The question before us does not relate to the duty or the policy of Kentucky or any other State concerning There is a broad distinction to be made between the duty of 'a State as a body politic, and the duty of individuals residing in the State. I might maintain, that it is the duty of the State of Kentucky immediately to adopt a plan of gradual emancipation, and yet contend, with perfect consistency, that so long as slavery is continued by the civil government, individuals may own slaves without sinning. The duty of the State is one thing; the duty of individuals quite another. Moreover, I might maintain what I firmly believe to be true-that slavery is a commercial evil in Kentucky, and that her true policy would be to rid herself of it as soon as possible-without at all admitting, that every individual who sustains the relation of master, is a heinous sinner.
9. In a word, we are not met to discuss the merits of any system of slavery Roman, Spanish, English, or American.... The question stated by the challengers to this discussion, and the question the gentleman stands pledged to debate, is-whether slave-holding is in itself sinful, and the relation between master and slave a sinful relation.
Let it be distinctly understood, that if slaveholding is in itself sinful; it is sinful under all possible circumstances, and must be instantly abandoned without regard to consequences. Blasphemy, for example, is in itself sinful; and therefore it cannot be justified by any possible circumstances.
In denying that slave-holding is in itself sinful, I do not defend slavery as an institution that ought to be perpetuated [emphasis added]. I am opposed to slavery; I deplore the evils connected with it. Most sincerely do I desire its removal from our land, so soon as it can be effected with safety to the parties involved in it. Most heartily do I desire to see every slave free; not nominally free, as are the colored people of Ohio, but truly free, as are many now in Liberia, who were once slaves. I go for gradual emancipation, and for colonization; but I will not agree to denounce and excommunicate every individual, who under existing circumstances, is a slave-holder. I maintain, that circumstances have existed, and do now exist, which justify the relation for the time being.
I oppose abolitionism, not because it tends to abolish slavery, and improve the condition of the slave, but because, as I firmly believe, it tends to perpetuate slavery, and to aggravate all its evils. That such is its tendency, that such have been its effects, I think I can prove to every unprejudiced mind.
If the doctrine for which I contend, were held only by slaveholders, or by men residing in slave-holding communities, I might be led strongly to suspect, that by early prejudices, my judgement had been unduly biased; but when I remember, that it has been held, and is now held by the great body of the wisest and
best men; that every commentator, critic and theologian of any note, however opposed to slavery, interprets the Scriptures on this subject just as I do; I cannot hesitate as to whether my views are correct. Sustained by such names, I go forward fearlessly in their defense.
gentleman tells us that the slaves have no families; that their children are born out of wedlock, and are illegitimate, because the civil law does not recognize their marriage. This, however, is not true. The marriage of slaves is as valid in the view of God's law as that of their masters. Marriage is a Bible institution. Will the gentleman point us to the portion of Scripture which prescribes any particular ceremony as essential to its validity?
By way of exciting our sympathies, he told us that the slaves have no patronymics, but like dogs and horses, are called Sally, and Bill, and Tom, &c. Will the gentleman inform us what was Abraham's sirname? Or what were the patronymics of Isaac and Jacob? He can find multitudes of slaves named Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob. Indeed, he will find amongst them the names of all the twelve Patriarchs. I presume they are not suffering for lack of names.
I do not remember that the gentleman offered one argument to prove slave-holding in itself sinful, unless he intended his appeal to the Constitutions of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, to be so considered! [Yet], they are not the rule of our faith, or of our morals.
At this point, Dr. Rice explained how his opponent had attempted to appeal to the sympathies of the audience rather than making biblical arguments to support the Radical Abolitionists' theory that slavery in itself is sinful. As he pointed out, rehashing accounts of slave abuse will no more prove slavery a sin in itself than rehashing accounts of wife abuse proves that marriage is itself sinful. Remember, Dr. Rice was a proponent of the abolition of slavery. By making the preceding point, he was demonstrating the absurdity of appealing to emotion instead of fact when considering matters of great importance. In the absence of any biblical arguments that slavery is in itself sinful, Dr. Rice pointed out that no recognized biblical scholar in the preceding nineteen hundred years had ever agreed with the Radical Abolitionists' view of slavery and sin. Like Judge Saffin of Massachusetts (see Chapter 2), the traditional Christian view of slavery was that sinful acts may take place within any institution, and those acts must be condemned. Whether it was judge Saffin's 1701 tract in defense of the biblical view of slavery, Dr. Rice's arguments in 1845, or any number of Southern theologians' views on slavery, sinfulness was condemned, but not the holding of slaves. Dr. Rice continued:
The question before us is not to be decided by appeals to sympathy, but by scriptural argument. Yet if the gentleman is determined to rely on such appeals, I hope to be able to present sufficient number of instances of cruelty in connection with the parental and conjugal relations, to demonstrate the utter fallacy of all such logic. Or if from it the conclusion be drawn, that slave-holding is in itself sinful; the conclusion that these relations are sinful, will follow, of course. To this result the audience, especially the younger portion, I presume, will be slow to come.-They must come to it, however, or pronounce all the gentleman's arguments from the cruelty of wicked men, destitute of weight.
We profess to be the friends of the slave; and we are prepared to prove, that those who adopt substantially our views, have done and are doing incalculably more to improve their condition, than the abolitionists; that whenever slavery has been abolished, it has been effected, not by the principles of modern abolitionism, but by the principles we advocate. We take the Bible of God as our guide; and to its plain teachings we confidently appeal. The question is not, as already remarked, whether the oppressed shall find in Christianity an asylum; but shall we condemn those whom God has not condemned? Shall we denounce and excommunicate persons of such character as were admitted to fellowship by the inspired Apostles of Christ? Shall we preach the gospel to slaves, and thus secure to them happiness here and glory hereafter; or shall we run a few of them to Canada, where their condition, instead of being improved, is made worse, and where they will rarely, if ever, hear the sound of the gospel? If I believed the doctrine so zealously propagated by the gentleman and his abolitionist brethren, tended to abolish slavery, and improve the condition of the slave, I should be slow to oppose it. But most full am I convinced, that its tendency is precisely the reverse; and, therefore, as the friend of the slaves I oppose it.'
In the first hour of his debate, Dr. Rice stated that he was not defending the institution of slavery but standing in opposition to the efforts of Radical Abolitionists. As a representative of the traditional emancipationist's view of gradual abolition of slavery, Dr. Rice viewed Southern slaveholders as individuals who had inherited a system of labor much the same as Northern slaveholders had done in an early age. To foster the elimination of slavery in the South, Dr. Rice stressed calm rhetoric and Christian charity as opposed to the strident rabble-rousing of the Radical Abolitionists.
As was established in Chapter 2, the gradual abolition of slavery in the North took place only when the need for slavery no longer existed. With slavery no longer necessary, the influence of Christianity and the gentle persuasion of society made the elimination of slavery possible in the North. But, as Dr. Rice pointed out, with the advent of the intemperate attacks upon the South by the Radical Abolitionists, the elimination of slavery was made more difficult and less likely to be achieved. Dr. Rice stated, "I do not believe [slavery] to be in itself sinful, though it is a great evil, and, therefore, I can consistently go for its gradual removal."5 By agitating the issue, the Radical Abolitionists, with their demand for immediate emancipation and condemnation of Southerners as vile sinners, halted all progress towards ending slavery. According to Dr. Rice, "For this unfavorable change, we are indebted to the ceaseless agitations of
One other point that Dr. Rice kept going back to during this debate is the lack of biblical authority his opponent was willing to assert in the maintenance of the theory that slavery is a sin. As Dr. Rice pointed out, there are many good biblical reasons for Christians to be opposed to slavery. But the debate was not whether Christians should be opposed to slavery; the point of the debate was whether slavery in itself is a sin. Thus, in the following brief exerts from Dr. Rice's second and third defense of his view of slavery, he set forth several biblical arguments to prove that slavery is not a sin. It is at this point that modern abolitionists (i.e., liberal politically correct theologians and academics) will assert that men such as Dr. Rice were defending slavery. Rather than using the Bible to defend slavery, Dr. Rice was attempting to point out the error of Radical Abolitionists. He asserted that they were responsible for curbing the long-standing movement in the South for ending slavery. This then is the reason Dr. Rice felt it necessary to point out that the Bible regulates and therefore ameliorates the evils associated with slavery, but does not condemn it as a sin.
For those adhering to orthodox Christian faith, using extra-biblical authorities to create a new class of "sin" would be nothing less than heresy. Theologians such as R. L. Dabney of Virginia would point out that once man-made philosophies become the judge of morality rather than the Bible, a whole host of ills can befall Christianity. Dabney noted, "He who discards this criterion [the Bible] makes man a reasonless brute, and the world an atheistic In 1879, Dabney even went so far as to predict the rise of modern feminism, the sexual revolution, and the banning of the Bible from public schools as a result of America's adoption of the Radical Abolitionist creeds Since his death, all the ills predicted by Dabney have been fulfilled. Therefore, the points being made by Drs. Rice and Dabney should not be lightly dismissed.
Subsequently during Dr. Rice's defense of the traditional view of emancipation, he chided his antagonist for not offering biblical arguments to prove that slaveholding in itself was a sin. In response to his antagonist's lack of biblical authority to prove slavery in itself to be a sin, Dr. Rice proceeded to prove that God regulates slavery in the Bible. According to orthodox Christianity, God cannot associate with sin; therefore, the regula
tion of slavery proves that it is no sin. Dr. Rice stated:
Let me call your attention to one striking fact. Many odious charges, as you know, were brought against the apostles of Christ: and yet, though slavery existed in its most odious form throughout all parts of the Roman Empire, they never were charged with being Abolitionists. Now I ask, and I put it to the candor of the brother opposed to me, and to the common sense of every man that hears me, if they had preached and acted as modern Abolitionists do, is it possible that no such charge would have been made by any one of the innumerable slaveholders with whom they came in contact? The apostles, it will not be denied, were as faithful in preaching what they believed to be truth, as our abolition friends, yet not a word of reproach was cast on them by any slave-holder, as if they had preached abolitionism. How is this fact to be accounted for?
My first position is this: God did recognize the relation of master and slave among the Patriarchs of the Old Testament; and did give express permission to the Jewish church to form that relation.-But God who is infinitely holy, could not recognize a relation in itself wrong, or give men permission to form such a relation. Therefore the relation of master and slave is not in itself sinful.
I presume the brother will not maintain, that God can ever, under any circumstances, give men permission to commit sin. The question, then, is whether God did give permission to the Jews to form the relation in question? If he did, and it is in itself a sinful relation, then he did give them express permission to commit abominable sin. I affirm that he did give such permission, and will proceed to prove it from the clear and unequivocal declarations of the Bible.