Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1861-01-17
VOLUME Z.
Ghe @ible aud Slaperp,
For the Yorkville Enquirer.
ARGUMENTS FOR SLAVERY.

ARGUMENTS FOR SLAVERY.
THE FALSE AND TRUE DEFINITIONS OF
SLAVERY. THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT
FOR IT AS FURNISHED BY ITS ORIGIN
As a concise and explicit and correct
definition of any disputed subjsot, tends
much to remove prejudice and opposition
to it, We will, in the outset of our defence
of slavery, attempt to ascertain what essen
tial ideas are so involved in the system Of
slavery, as to be incorporated into defni'
tion of aOhat is slauery proper. Aristotle
says, "the slave is tool with soul il it"
Cicero would tell US that slavery necessari'
ly involves ssobedience, rendered by a mind
which is broken and abject, and wants q
will of its own" DR.. Charming, the great
Unitarian Apostle of Abolitiouism, in A
merica, says, "Ths very idea of slave is
that he belongs to another, that he is bound
to live and labor for another, to be anosh-
er's instrument, and to make another's will
his habitual law, however adverse to his
own" Thus he intends to teach slavery
to be property in man as man, by which
an infraotiou of all human rights ensues,
and the slave is divested of humanity, ceases
to be person and becomes mere instru'
ment or thing. To the same effect are the
definitions furnished by Prof Whewell and
Prof. Hickok and Prof. Haven; and ad'
hered to, by the most rabid Of the oppo
nents of African slavery. On the other
hand, good authorities in morals, define
"slavery to be the masters right to the ser
vice of the slave, involving the correspond
ing obligation, to treat him as man, guard
ing his rights as to family, compensation
and religious instruction"
But the definition of Paley, is the one
usually accepted in the South, which makes
nslavery to be an obligation to labor for the
benefit of the master, without contract Of
consent of the servant" Regarding this
as a correct definition, We are willing to a
dopt it with the following exposition, fur
nished by the prince of Theologians in the
South, says he: "What is it that makes
man slave? We answer, the obligation
to labor for another, determined, by the
Providence of God, independently of the
provisions of contract The right which
the master has, is right, not to the man
but to his labor. The duty which the slave
owes, is the service which, in conformity
with this right, the master exacts The es
sential difference betwixt free and slave
labor is, that one is rendered in conse
ouence of contract-the other is render
ed in consequence Of command. The
laborers in each case, are equally moral
equally responsible, equally men. Bu'
they work upon different principles" Or
ThornwelD. The system then, which en-
braces the essential ideas of this last defni'
tion, and which implies reciprocal duties on
the part of master aud slave, We pronounce
slavery to be, and we assume to defend ii
as lawful, wherever the Providence of God
originates it, and wherever it exists, in ac'
cordauce with the purposes and laws OF its
primary institution.
I. And in prosecuting orr design we trs
develope the Biblical argument.
In presenting this argument, under sew
eral particular specifications, we take as oul
first position, that slavery is recognized, au'
thorized and sanctioned in the Bible as is
evident:
1. From its origin and its accompany
ing circumstances.
In Genesis 9 :20-27, we have not only
the fact of slavery prophetically and judi
cially indicated, but we also learn there
the occasion and cause, the agents, the vic
TINS and form Of slavery.
Noah, having from excess of wine, faller
into deep sleep, is treated with disrespect
irreverence, and, perhaps, ridicule and car
nal sport, by his son Ham-awakes to bless
with the aid of inspiration, his two pious
and faithful sons, but predicts the doom o.
Ham in such language as to imply the en-
Shaving of his posterity, and especially il
the line of Canaan. "And he said cursed
be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he
be to his brethren"
Upon this narrative we submit the fol
lowing comments
l. 1t is mooted question, why the sen
tence was pronounced so pointedly upor
Canaan, rather than Ham himself, or his
whole race.
Some tell US it was because that Canaan
was participant in the crime of his father,
that ne, first discovering the condition Of
Noah, informed his father in the same spir-
it that Ham afterwards manifested towards
the patriarch and herein they find rea.
son for Canaan's being singled out in the
prophecy. But to this it need be only said
it is speculation and conjecture. Anoth
er opinion is, that the curse was levelled a.
gslnst Canaan, because God designed thus
10 furnish encouragement for the Israelites
when, severa! centuries afterwards, they
should be called to subdue the Canaanites.
Looking upon the Canaanites as doomed,
in their progenitor, to servitude, Israel would
be nerved for the conquest of the land Of
Canaan. This is a forcible reason and has
able advocates. Besides this we can con.
ceive, that with great propriety Canaan
might be designated, when it is remember
ed that the very sin, in kind, namely spe
cies of licentiousness, charged upon Ham,
was the sin to be most remarkably preva
lent among the descendants of Canaan, as
is evident from Deut. 1S: 27 and 20 :23
and hence by denouncing judgment upon
this primal sin, and first Development Of
the evil, God would by premonition prepare