Year: 1859

is, that not being included in the schedule
Of property" liable to stray, he Vas not re-
garded in law, or in fact as property"
And, End; it furnishes support to the 23d
chapter of Deuteronomy before quoted, for
the purpose of showing that escaped SER
wants could not be returned. Deuteronomy
forbids their compulsory return; whilst Ex-
odus in enumerating returnable property
does not in,'lude servants; thus the two
statutes mutually support each other. So
again, following up the idea that the servant
was not recognised as property" by the
Mosaic law, Mr.. Taunton said that the
Jews, although empowered to buy of the
heather nations around and of the Hebrews
who had ''waxen poor" yet when they were
so bought, there was end of it; permission
was no where given to sell again, and that
the Bible recorded not one instance in which
servant had been sold to another master.
To this it was replied, by attempting to es-
tablish an implied power to sell. thought
the effort very feeble one at tho ti'ne; it
appeared improbable to me that such right
should exist and no mention be made of it.
and no instance given of it through period
OF thousands of years. The Old Testament
is very minute and circ,rmstantial on many
things. which in themselves have no impor-
tant bearing upon the great interests
of the human family. Can it then be pos
sible that it would he wholly silent upon a
point which MUS. largely color and influence
the great drama of human society in all its
subsequent scenes? This would be difficult
to conceive. Mr.. Taunton settled it by
planting himself upon the sensible 18th ar
ticle Of Amendments to our Constitution:
"An powers not Granted are Withheld" And
further, as the 21st chaptec Of Exodus con-
tains an express provision against the sepa-
ration Of families, bv what rule of reasoning
can the right to sell be maintained, when
that right to sell would necessarily carry
with it the right to separate families at the
pleasure Of the masters And all this is done
without any express permission given, or
any example recorded in the whole of the
Scriptures. With no precedent in its favor.
and with an express Injunction against it,
what Judge, not interested in the issue.
would peril his reputrtion by deciding in ia
vor of such right, as based on Scriptural
authority.


Conceiving it to be fully proven that the
Jews had no authority to sell, and bearing
in mind that the Stakeholder appeals to the
law of Moses for his privileges, let us pause
a moment to give practical application of
this feature of Jewish law. Withhold from
the South the right to sell, and what would
follow there9 Why the States of Virginia,
North Carolina, Tennessee, Maryland, Dela-
ware and Missouri would at once. or at a
very early Jay, become free States. The
chiefincome of some of these States, and
very large income to the remainder, is de-
rived from the sale Of their surplus human
stock; and if not permitted to. sell them off,
then two difficulties would soon arise.


lst. The income of the State and the indi-
viduals comprising it would he cut off.


End. The number Of Slaves by natural
increase would soon become so great as to
eat up the products of the soil; and by these
silent agencies, emancipation would follow
After this would necessarily come a breaking
up and dividing Of those immense estates,
now lying to a great extent unproductive;
and this change would bring with it that
superior kind Of husbandry which always
distinguishes free from slave labor; the real
social landmarks which stand between
higher and lower state of civilization.


After squeezing out what authority he
could from the Mosaic laws in favor of Slave
ry, Mr.. Fowler took another position; one
which I have never yet thought correct,
and which, so far as Slavery is concerned,
has long been abandoned by very eminent
writers. He said the original inhabitants of
the land Of Canaan were negroes, that the
color and other peculiarities Of that race, re-
suited from the curse Of Noah upau- his
grandchild, Canaan, who had commit
mitted no offence; that they have always
been in slavery, and that they are now full
filling the conditions of that curse. To this
it was replied that we have no Scriptural
evidence whatever th,t God has ever given
his sanction and effect to that curse: that
Noah arose from a State of intoxication,,
and as an evidence that he had not recov-
cred clearness Of perception, he cursed;
whom? The offender? Nothing of the
kind; but one of his grandchildren; a
whom there is not the slightest proof that
he either participated in, or had any knowl-
edge Of the offense of his father, Ham. The
punishment also does violence to all our
ideas Of justice, because it bears a relation
to the offence, something like time to eter-
nifty. With propriety, Mr. Taunton might
have added that God has not in the Mosaic
Inv extended the punishment for the sins of
the fathers upon the children bevond the
fourth generation. IfGod, in his infinite
wisdom, saw fit to limit his visitation for the
parents transgression to the fourth genera