Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1852-04-07
NO. xxi.

this respect, the same management. IL wli
surprise many Northern people to be m
formed that many slave-owners at the Soutn
make it principle, never to beat negro
and that many more neglect to use the rod
of correction, in cases where ITS use would
be of real benefit to vicious and refractory
slaves. have no hesitation in saying, that
this i'll judged lenity is in some portions OF
the South, one of the greatest evils in COM
nexion with slavery. A firm and strict dis
cipline, tempered with proper moderation.
is no less essential to the moral improve;
mcnt and the we'll being of the slaves, than
to the peace and prosperity OF their mas
ters. II
Omitting, for the sake Of brevity, TO add
any remarks on other points of the Old Ies-
lament view of slavery, | will say few
words on the only plausible objection, which
can be made to the argument for the law
funess of the institution, drawn from this
portion of the Sacred Records. lthas been
alledged that this argument sanctions poIyg-
amy as much as it does slaveholding. The
objection, to have any force, must presup-
pose. that both practices were equally al.
lowed under the old dispensation, & equal.
" condemned under the new. To this 90:
lection, make three answers: lst. Admit
ting the facts to be as thus presupposed, the
argument would still demolish the main
foundation of the abolition theory. Itwould
show that slavery is. not ''n'alum IN se,'
sinful in its our nature ; and that the pre-
cept prohibiting il is not moral precept,
like those forbidding perjury and murder,
but positive precept, like that which In
terdlcts labor on the Sabbath. In short 1t
would prove that slavery is not malun N
Sc. but ma7um prohibitpm But in truth, It
is neither the one nor the other; for I'd.
Slavery is not, like polygamy, forbidden by
the New Testament. The latter is declar-
ed to be adultery, Mat. 19: 8. But itis
not pretended, that slayeryis expressly for
b,dden. or declared to be sinful, by any new
law of the christian dispcnsation. 1t has
indeed been contended, that slaveholding
is inconsistent with the rule, "Whatsoeyer
ye would that men should do to you, DO ye
even so TO them," Matt. 7 10. But our
Saviour Immediately adds, "For this is the
law and the prophets" 1t IS then no ntD
law it is in substance the same with one
which was given by Moses, Lev. 19: l8,
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyseii:
But this rule does not in reality prohibit
slavery at all. It no more forbids the mass
ter TO exac. service from his slave, than 1t
torbids the landlord to exact money from
his tenant. 1t affords as good an argument
for anti-rehtism, as for abolalonlsm. 80:
There is still another answer. Polygamy
receives far less countenance from the Old
Testament than slavery. There is no ex-
press permission of the former; nor is IT
anywhere spoken of as a blessing. But
little is SAID of it in the Mosaic law. The
civil law barely tolerated 1t, while it pro-
vided regulations to diminish its evils: The
moral law of Moses has been thought ex-
pressly to forbid it. The original OF the ex-
nression, n,-"Neither shalt thou take wife
to her sister," Lev. 1s: lS, is capable ac'
cording 10 the Hebrew usage, OF being rem
dered.- .-Neither shalt thou take one r,te 10
another. In the Decalogue, polygamy, IN
stead Of being recognized, is plainly dis
countenanced. Indeed the account OF the
original institution of marriage, Gen. 2: ~
"a. clearly shows the will of God in refer.
encc to thus subject. See Nal. 2: Is, and
Matt. 19: 4, S. In the few cases, which
are on record, of plous men who had Plu'
ralitv of wives, it is sufficiently clear from
the Bible, that the practice was criminal,
though in far less degree than it is under
the christian dispensatlon. But with re.
gard to slavery, the Scriptures contain not
The least intimation. that any degree of crim'
inality is necessarily connected with 1t.
Yours respectfully,