The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1861-01-10

Pro-slavery preachers invariably cite tht
examples OF the pa.rarchs in support Of
slavery. Abraham and Jacob owned slaves,
they tell the shareholders, and they were
good men whom God blessed and favored
above any men OF their time; and, therefore,
slavery could not be wrong.
IL the Shareholders believe the teachings Of
the preachers, they might add, Abraham ard
Jacob went in unto their bondmaids and had
sons by them, and If it is right for US to follow
their example 10 the one case, it cannot be
wrong in the other, only our preacher. are
too modest to tell US so. Tho authority OF
the example is just as valid, and its tcnden-
cies quite as good, in the latter as 10 the for
mer case.
The preachers quote the laws Of Moses,
that theYbondmen Of the Jews should be OF
the heather round about them. in proof that
God approved slavery. And the Rev. Mr..
VanDyke says that he finds it written thus
10 the Divine law, and, therefore. be tells
the Aboitionist that his assertion that slave
holding is wrong, blasphemes the name of
God forgetting in that assertion that Mo-
ses' law-.he same which he quotes in favor
Of slavery-also allowed q man to. put away
his wife, which Christ forbid and denounced
as wrong. Who denies that the latter act,
permitted BY the laws Of Moses, was wrong
and is wrong? aud how dare MIR. VanDyke,
or any other minister of the gospel, pro-
nounce denial OF the righteousness OF this
law OF Moses as blasphemy against God
Again, that same law enacts that the slave
that escapes shall not be delivered up, and
declares that he that stealeth man shall be
put to death. Then IL the law OF Moses is
authoritative in this matter to settle the
right. Why do not those who quote it give us
the whole benefit of it? The title to nil the
slaves in this country was originally derived
from those who stole men in Africa, and who
meritgt death therefor; and II the Jewish
laws src in any sense authoritative here,
what business has Mr.. VanDyke to pronounce
it blaspheny to deny tho validity Of one, and
to turn round and deDounce Abolitonists for
obeying another on the same subject?
Does j. follow tina. because God command
ed the Jews to obtain their bond servants
from the heatben around them that it is right
for us to make bond-servanss Of the heatbenf
II the argument does not go to that extent,
1t is worth nothing in favor Of American
slavery; il it does 20 to that extent, then it
jussihcs the re-opening Of the African slave
trade. But If Gods commands to tho Jews
arc justification for our doing what they
were required to do under penalty OF the
wrath OF God, then We would be justified in
massacreing the heather round about u.s.
men, women aud children, even to the babes
in their mothers arms.
But If the rro-slavcry teachers tell US that
the example If the Patriarchs, the require
ments Of the Levitical law, and the com.
mands Of God to the Jews, are only the rule
Of right for us so far as they favor the
idea OF slavery, We cannot but think
they make the distinction because they them
selves favor slavery, and no. because there
IL any real difference.
There WAS q time--and that was about the
era in which certain dreadful Purtans hat
their origin-that the church held to tbt
s'Divine right Of Kings' to reign and rul,
With, universal unsnimity, and charged al
with hlasphemy that dared to doubt.
The same right Of private judgment, which
in the exercise of common sense blotted tina
dogma from the creed Of Christians, will, err
long, perform like service for that twill
dogma Of the barbaric ages Of the Churcl
still insisted on as the .Disinc right 0
slavery