The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1849-07-21
COMMUNICATIONS



Dear Sir:-In your third article ON the
"Slavery Question: you take your readers
back to PatriarchaI times You refer to Abra-
hsm and say, "The fact Is fully confirmed that
abraham owned servants, or slaves, (for they
were slaves in the full sense Of the term,) some
Of which were bought with his money and some
we're born in his house." Again you remark
that Abraham's servants "were verify slaves in
the very sense in which that term 10 understood
in our language" II the term servant" a.
used la the Scriptures, is Synonymous with the
the term ''slsve," as used among Us, il il not
remaIkabIs that the Hebrew and Greek words
translated servant are in no instance rendered
sayel think you will find the term slave in
only two passages of the Bible, that 10 to say,
jeremiah 9: IA, and Revelation Is: -. In the
former passage IT is in italics which indicates
that there is no word corresponding to it in the
original, nor is there a corresponding term in
the Septuagint or in the Vulgste version. In
the latter passage the Greek term literally means
''bodies," as any Greek scholar can zee.
state these facts to show that il does not follow
necessarily that Abraham's servants were slaves
in the American acceptation Of the word.
admit that the Bible refers to a system Of servi-
tuds in connection with Abraham's family, bat
| affirm that there are points Of material dis
similarity between that system and our system
Of slavery. Now for the proof:
In the fourteenth chapter Of Genesis we are
told that when certain rObber Kings had cap
tured Lot and committed depredatiOns on his
goods, Abraham earned his trained servants,
three hundred and Gig htesn, and pursued them 80
Would American slsveholdsrs in similar cir
cumslanees adopt similar counsel Do not
many Of our States make II apenal offence for
aslave to carry a weaPonl You will perhaps
say that the safety Of the white population rem
ders this prudential regulation necessary. II
this be admitted it only shows the dissimilarity
for which l contend.
There is another species Of proof to which
you cannot object You concede that Abraham
held his servants for hsiT benefit, and not his
own. This, | am aware is your view, and
admire the beneyolencs that has led you TO
adopt il. But let me ask the American slave
holders influenced by considerations Of benefit
to their slaves to hold them in bondage, Is
this the motive that controls them7 Surely il
is not, and If not, our system Of slavery differs
materially from Patrisrchal servitude-
must content myself with one more proof
means exhausted. Abraham at one time apprs-
hensive of dying childless, evidently supposed
that in that event. his servant, the steward Of
has house, (whom you call his "slaUs'' and
italicizs the term would be his heir. IL there
any regulation like this in slave Statesl Is the
slave any where the heir Of his childless mas
ter Such question will probably excite the
sensibility and the scorn of shareholders In
view Of the fact that If Abraham had died child
less, his servant would have been his heir, as
sert that patriarchal ssrvitude and American
slavery exhibit essential dissimilarities.
But suppose, for arguments sake, the two
systems weie substantially the same. What
them Would 1t follow that our system is right
By no means, unless il can be shown that what
ever Abraham did was right. This, however,
is a common argument: Shareholders say,
abraham held slaves and therefore it is not
wrong for us to hold them" This species of
logic might be employed to the great annoyance
of its authors. 1t might be said, Abraham had
son by his servant Hagar. and shsTefoTe, &C.
Abraham had cOncubines and therefore Sc
Abraham was guilty of equivocation, and there
fore &c. An argument which proves too much
proves nothing.
You next proceed to the Mosaic law in cor
roboration Of your views of slavery, and refer
to the "Gibeonites'' in proof Of the divine
clemency'' Of slavery among the Israelites. A
distinguished writer Of Virginia, Rev Mr.
StringfellOw, in his treatise on slavery argues
that the DO ndsge Of the Gibeonitss was the full
hlment Of the imPrecatory prediction of Noah
relative to his grandson: "Curssd be Canaan;
a servant Of servants shall he bs unto his breth-
rem" Let us examine this matter: The Gibeo-
mites, as We learn from the ninth chapter Of
Joshua, were seized with CONSERVATION when
the children Of Israel entered into "the promised
land" To avoid utter determination thew
in his triumphant march, and saying that they
were from ga far country" Joshua "msde a
league with them, to let them live: and the
princes Of the congregation swors unto them, {"
evidently under the impression that they did not
belong to any Of the Canaanitish tribes. When
the deception had been detected the "princes"
were Of opinion thatthe "oath,'' they had taken
should be sacredly regarded, and that the Gibeo-
mites should be made "bondmen, hewers Of
wood, and drawers Of water" But 70. the
'league'' and the ''oath'' they would doubtless
have been utterly destroyed 1t had been re-
peatedly enloined on the Israelites to ''destroy
oil the inhabitants of the land" God let Abra-
ham know that several centuries would elspse
from the time he gave him title to Canaan un-
tai his posterty should take actual possession of
it Why this lapse of ages and generation.9
The reason which God himself gives is this:
"For the inIquity of the Amorites Is not vet
full. The divine arrangement was that the full.
ness OF their iniquity should be the signal for
their destruction, and the Israelites were to be
their destroyers-a fact which duplicates the
divine goodness no more than the distinctions
caused by plaques, pestilences, and earth
quakes. Now it seems to me little unfortunate
for your and Mr.. String fellow's side Of the Ques-
ton to refer to the Gibeonites at all Why were
they made bondmenl II iras done IN ignorant
violation Of the pOsitirs command of God. You
do not, you cannot believe that it would have
been done had Joshua known that they were in