Chapter 7

These links are logical sequences. All men--man and woman--are created equal,--equal in _attributes of body and mind_; (for _that_ is the only sense in which they could be _created_ equal;) _therefore_ they are endowed with right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, unalienable, except in their consent; _consequently_ such consent is essential to all rightful government; and, _finally_ and _irresistibly_, the people have supreme right to alter or abolish it, &c.

The meaning, then, I give to that first link, and to the chain following, _is_ the sense, because, if you deny that meaning to the _first link_, then the others have no logical truth whatever. Thus:--

If all men are _not_ created equal in attributes of body and mind, then the _inequality_ may be _so great_ that such men cannot be endowed with right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, unalienable save in their _consent_; then government over such men cannot rightfully rest upon their _consent_; nor can they have right to alter or abolish government in their mere determination.

Yea, sir, you concede every thing if you admit that the "Declaration" does _not_ mean to affirm that all men are "_created_" _equal in body and mind_.

I will suppose in the Alps a community of Cretins,--_i.e._ deformed and helpless idiots,--but among them many from the same parents, who, in body and mind, by birth are comparatively _Napoleons_. Now, this _inequality_, physical and mental, by birth, makes it impossible that the government over these Cretins can be in their "_consent_." _The Napoleons must rule_. The Napoleons must absolutely control their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," for the good of the community. Do you reply that I have taken an extreme case? that everybody admits sensible people must govern natural fools? Ay, sir, there is the rub. _Natural fools_! Are some men, then, "_created_" natural fools? Very well. Then you also admit that some men are _created_ just a degree above natural fools!--and, consequently, that men are "_created_" in all degrees, gradually rising in the scale of intelligence. Are they not "_created_" just above the brute, with savage natures along with mental imbecility and physical degradation? Must the Napoleons govern the Cretins without their "consent"? Must they not also govern without their "consent" these types of mankind, whether one, two, three, thirty, or three hundred degrees above the Cretins, if they are still greatly inferior by nature? Suppose the Cretins removed from the imagined community, and a colony of Australian ant-catchers or California lizard-eaters be in their stead: must not the Napoleons govern these? And, if you admit inequality to be in birth, then that inequality is the very ground of the reason why the Napoleons must govern the ant-catchers and lizard-eaters. Remove these, and put in their place an importation of African negroes. Do you admit _their inferiority by_ "CREATION?" Then the same control over them must be the irresistible fact in common sense and Scripture of God. _The Napoleons must govern_. They must govern without asking "consent,"--if the inequality be such that "_consent_" would be evil, and not good, in the family--the state.

Yea, sir, if you deny that the "Declaration" asserts "all men are created equal" in body and mind, then you admit the inequality may be such as to make it impossible that in such cases men have rights unalienable save in their "consent;" and you admit it to be impossible that government in such circumstances can exist in such "_consent_" But, if you affirm the "Declaration" _does_ mean that men are "_created_ equal" in attributes of body and mind, then you hold to an equality which God, in his word, and providence, and the natural history of man, denies to be truth.

I think I have fairly shown, from Scripture and facts, that the first averment is not the truth; and have reduced it to an absurdity. I will now regard the second, third, and fourth links of the chain.

I know they are already broken; for, the whole chain being but an electric current from a vicious imagination, I have destroyed the whole by breaking the first link. Or was it but a cluster from a poisonous vine, then I have killed the branches by cutting the vine. I will, however, expose the other three sequences by a distinct argument covering them all.

_Authority Delegated to Adam_.

God gave to Adam sovereignty over the human race, in his first decree:--"_He shall rule over thee_." _That_ was THE INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT. It was not based on the "_consent_" of Eve, the governed. It was from God. He gave to Adam like authority to rule his children. It was not derived from their "_consent_". It was from God. He gave Noah the same sovereignty, with express power over life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It was not founded in "_consent_" of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives. It was from God. He then determined the habitations of men on all the face of the earth, and _indicated_ to them, in every clime, the _form_ and _power_ of their governments. He gave, directly, government to Israel. He just as truly gave it to Idumea, to Egypt, and to Babylon, to the Arab, to the Esquimaux, the Caffre, the Hottentot, and the negro.

God, in the Bible, decides the matter. He says, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid, for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render, therefore, to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." (Rom. xiii. 1-7.)

Here God reveals to us that he has _delegated to government his own_ RIGHT _over life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness_; and that that RIGHT is not, in any sense, from the "_consent_" of the governed, but is directly from him. Government over men, whether in the family or in the state, is, then, as directly from God as it would be if he, in visible person, ruled in the family or in the state. I speak not only of the RIGHT simply to govern, but the _mode_ of the government, and the _extent_ of the power. Government _can do_ ALL which God _would do,--just_ THAT,--_no more, no less_. And it is _bound to do just_ THAT,--_no more, no less_. Government is responsible to God, if it fails to do _just_ THAT which He himself would do. It is under responsibility, then, to rule in righteousness. It must not oppress. It must _give_ to every individual "_life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness_," in harmony with the _good_ of the family,--the state,--_as God himself would give it_,--_just_ THAT, _no more, no less_.

This passage of Scripture settles the question, From whence has government RIGHT to rule, and what is the _extent_ of its power? The RIGHT is from God, and the EXTENT of the power is _just_ THAT to which God would exercise it if he were personally on the earth. God, in this passage, and others, settles, with equal clearness, from whence is the OBLIGATION to _submit_ to government, and what is the _extent_ of the duty of obedience? The OBLIGATION to submit is not from individual RIGHT to consent or not to consent to government,--but the OBLIGATION _to submit_ is directly from God.

The EXTENT of the duty of obedience is equally revealed--in this wise: so long as the government rules in righteousness, the duty is perfect obedience. So soon, however, as government requires _that_ which God, in his word, _forbids the subject to do_, he must obey God, and not man. He must refuse to obey man. But, inasmuch as the obligation to submit to authority of government is so great, the subject must _know_ it is the will of God, that he shall refuse to obey, before he assumes the responsibility of resistance to the powers that be. His _conscience_ will not justify him before God, if he mistakes his duty. _He may be all the more to blame for having_ SUCH A CONSCIENCE. Let him, then, be CERTAIN he can say, like Peter and John, "Whether it be right, in the sight of God, to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."

But, when government requires _that_ which God _does not forbid_ the subject to do, although _in that_ the government may have transcended the line of its righteous rule, the subject must, nevertheless, submit,--_until_ oppression has gone to _the point_ at which _God makes_ RESISTANCE _to be duty._ And _that point_ is when RESISTANCE will clearly be _less of evil, and more of good_, TO THE COMMUNITY, than further submission.

_That_ is the rule of _duty_ God gives to the _whole_ people, or to the _minority_, or to the _individual_, to guide them in resistance to the powers that be.

It is irresistibly _certain_ that _He who ordains_ government _has, alone, the right to alter or abolish it_,--that He who institutes the powers that be has, alone, the right to say when and how the people, in whole or in part, may resist. So, then, the people, in whole, or in part, have no right to resist, to alter, or abolish government, simply because _they_ may deem it destructive of the end for which it was instituted; but they may resist, alter, or abolish, _when it shall be seen that God so regards it_. This places the great fact where it must be placed,--_under the_ CONTROL _of the_ BIBLE _and_ PROVIDENCE.

_Illustrations_.

I will conclude with one or two illustrations. God, in his providence, ordains the Russian form of government,--_i.e._ He places the sovereignty in one man, because He sees that such government can secure, for a time, more good to that degraded people than any other form. Now, I ask, Has the emperor _right_, from God, to change at once, in his mere "_consent_," the _form_ of his government to _that_ of the United States? No. God forbids him. Why? Because he would thereby destroy the good, and bring immense evil in his empire. I ask again, Have the Russian serfs and nobles,--yea, all,--"consenting," the right, from God, to make that change? No. For the government of the United States is not suited to them. And, in such an attempt, they would deprive themselves of the blessings they now have, and bring all the horrors of anarchy.

Do you ask if I then hold, that God ordains the Russian type of rule to be perpetual over that people? No. The emperor is bound to secure all of "_life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness_," to each individual, consistent with the good of the nation. And he is to learn his obligation from the Bible, and faithfully apply it to the condition of his subjects. _He will thus gradually elevate them_; while they, on their part, are bound to strive for this elevation, in all the ways in which God may show them the good, and the right, which, more and more, will belong to them in their upward progress. The result of such government and such obedience would be that of a father's faithful training, and children's corresponding obedience. The Russian people would thus have, gradually, that measure of liberty they could bear, under the one-man power,--and then, in other forms, as they might be qualified to realize them. This development would be without convulsion,--as the parent gives place, while the children are passing from the lower to their higher life. It would be the exemplification of Carlyle's illustration of the snake. He says, A people should change their government only as a snake sheds his skin: the new skin is gradually formed under the old one,--and then the snake wriggles out, with just a drop of blood here and there, where the old jacket held on rather tightly.

God ordains the government of the United States. And _He places_ the _sovereignty_ in the _will_ of the majority, because He has trained the people, through many generations in modes of government, to such an elevation in moral and religious intelligence, that such sovereignty is best suited to confer on them the highest right, as yet, to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But God requires that _that will of the majority_ be in perfect submission to Him. Once more then I inquire,--Whether the people of this country, yea all of them consenting, have right from God, to abolish now, at this time, our free institutions, and set up the sway of Russia? No. But why? There is one answer only. He tells us that our happiness is in this form of government, and in it, its developed results.

_The "Social Compact" not recognised in the Divine Institute_.

Here I pause. So, then, God gives no sanction to the notion of a SOCIAL COMPACT. He never gave to man individual, isolated, natural rights, unalienably in his keeping. He never made him a Caspar Hauser, in the forest, without name or home,--a Melchisedek, in the wilderness, without father, without mother, without descent,--a Robinson Crusoe, on his island, in skins and barefooted, waiting, among goats and parrots, the coming of the canoes and the savages, to enable him to "_consent_" if he would, to the relations of social life.

And, therefore, those five sentences in that second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence are not the truth; so, then, it is not _self-evident_ truth that all men are created equal. So, then, it is not the truth, in fact, that they are created equal. So, then, it is not the truth that God has endowed all men with unalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. So, then, it is not the truth that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. So, then, it is not the truth that the people have right to alter or abolish their government, and institute a new form, whenever to them it shall seem likely to effect their safety and happiness.

The manner in which these unscriptural dogmas have been modified or developed in the United States, I will examine in another paper.

I merely add, that the opinions of revered ancestors, on these questions of right and their application to American slavery, must now, as never before, be brought to the test of the light of the Bible. F.A. Ross.

Huntsville, Ala., Jan. 1857.

Man-Stealing.

This argument on the abolition charge, against the slave-holder,--that he is a man-stealer,--covers the whole question of slavery, especially as it is seen in the Old Testament. The headings in the letter make the subject sufficiently clear.

No. III.

Rev. Albert Barnes:--

Dear Sir:--In my first letter, I merely touched some points in your tract, intending to notice them more fully in subsequent communications. I have, in my second paper, sufficiently examined the imaginary maxims of created equality and unalienable rights.

In this, I will test your views by Scripture more directly. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah viii. 20).

The abolitionist charges the slave-holder with being a _man-stealer_. He makes this allegation in two affirmations. First, that the slave-holder is thus guilty, because, the negro having been kidnapped in Africa, therefore those who now hold him, or his children, in bondage, lie under the guilt of that first act. Secondly, that the slave-holder, by the very fact that he is such, is guilty of stealing from the negro his unalienable right to freedom.

This is the charge. It covers the whole subject. I will meet it in all its parts.

_The Difference between Man-Stealing and Slave-Holding, as set forth in the Bible_.

The Bible reads thus: (Exodus xxi. 16:)--"He that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."

What, then, is it to kidnap or steal a man? Webster informs us--To kidnap is "to steal a human being, a man, woman, or child; or to seize and forcibly carry away any person whatever, from his own country or state into another." The idea of "_seizing and forcibly carrying away"_ enters into the meaning of the word in all the definitions of law.

The crime, then, set forth in the Bible was not _selling_ a man: but selling a _stolen_ man. The crime was not having a man _in his hand as a slave_; but......in _his_ hand, as a slave, a _stolen_ man. And hence, the penalty of _death_ was affixed, not to selling, buying, or holding man, as a slave, but to the specific offence of _stealing and selling, or holding_ a man _thus stolen, contrary to this law_. Yea, it was _this law_, and this law _only_, which made it _wrong_. For, under some circumstances, God sanctioned the seizing and forcibly carrying away a man, woman, or child from country or state, into slavery or other condition. He sanctioned the utter destruction of every male and every married woman, and child, of Jabez-Gilead, and the seizure, and forcibly carrying away, four hundred virgins, unto the camp to Shiloh, and there, being given as wives to the remnant of the slaughtered tribe of Benjamin, in the rock Rimmon. Sir, how did that destruction of Jabez-Gilead, and the kidnapping of those young women, differ from the razing of an African village, and forcibly seizing, and carrying away, those not put to the sword? The difference is in this:--God commanded the Israelites to seize and bear off those young women. But he forbids the slaver to kidnap the African. Therefore, the Israelites did right; therefore, the trader does wrong. The Israelites, it seems, gave wives, in that way, to the spared Benjamites, because they had sworn not to give their daughters. But there were six hundred of these Benjamites. Two hundred were therefore still without wives. What was done for them? Why, God authorized the elders of the congregation to tell the two hundred Benjamites to catch every man his wife, of the daughters of Shiloh, when they came out to dance, in the feast of the Lord, on the north side of Bethel. And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, "whom they caught:" (Judges xxi.) God made it right for those Benjamites to catch every man his wife, of the daughters of Shiloh. But he makes it wrong for the trader to catch his slaves of the sons or daughters of Africa. Lest you should try to deny that God authorized this act of the children of Israel, although I believe he did order it, let me remind you of another such case, the authority for which you will not question.

Moses, by direct command from God, destroyed the Midianites. He slew all the males, and carried away all the women and children. He then had all the married women and male children killed; but all the virgins, thirty-two thousand, were divided as spoil among the people. And _thirty-two_ of these virgins, _the Lord's tribute_, were given unto Eleazar, the priest, "as the Lord commanded Moses." (Numbers xxxi.)

Sir, Thomas Paine rejected the Bible on this fact among his other objections. Yea, _his_ reason, _his_ sensibilities, _his_ great law of humanity, _his_ intuitional and eternal sense of right, made it impossible for him to honor such a God. And, sir, on your now avowed principles of interpretation, which are those of Paine, you sustain him in his rejection of the books of Moses and all the word of God.

God's command _made it right_ for Moses to destroy the Midianites and make slaves of their daughters; and I have dwelt upon these facts, to reiterate what I hold to be THE FIRST TRUTH IN MORALS:--that a thing is right, not because it is ever so _per se_, but because God _makes it right_; and, of course, a thing is wrong, not because it is so in the nature of things, but because God makes it wrong. I distinctly have taken, and do take, that ground in its widest sense, and am prepared to maintain it against all comers. He made it right for the sons of Adam to marry their sisters. He made it right for Abraham to marry his half-sister. He made it right for the patriarchs, and David and Solomon, to have more wives than one. He made it right when he gave command to kill whole nations, sparing none. He made it right when he ordered that nations, or such part as he pleased, should be spared and enslaved. He made it right that the patriarchs and the Israelites should hold slaves in harmony with the system of servile labor which had long been in the world. He merely modified that system to suit his views of good among his people. So, then, when he saw fit, they might capture men. So, then, when he forbade the individual Israelite to steal a man, he made it crime, and the penalty death. So, then, that crime was not the mere _stealing_ a man, nor the _selling_ a man, nor the _holding_ a man,--but the _stealing and selling_, or _holding_, a man _under circumstances thus forbidden of God_.

_Was the Israelite Master a Man-Stealer?_

I now ask, Did God intend to make man-stealing and slave-holding the same thing? Let us see. In that very chapter of Exodus (xxi.) which contains the law against man-stealing, and only four verses further on, God says, "If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished: notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two he shall not be punished; for he is his money." (Verses 20, 21.)

Sir, that man was not a hired servant. He was bought with money. He was regarded by God _as the money_ of his master. He was his slave, in the full meaning of a slave, then, and now, bought with money. God, then, did not intend the Israelites to understand, and not one of them ever understood, from that day to this, that Jehovah in his law to Moses regarded the slave-holder as a man-stealer. Man-stealing was a specific offence, with its specific penalty. Slave-holding was one form of God's righteous government over men,--a government he ordained, with various modifications, among the Hebrews themselves, and with sterner features in its relation to heathen slaves.

In Exodus xxi. and Leviticus xxv., various gradations of servitude were enacted, with a careful particularity which need not be misunderstood. Among these, a Hebrew man might be a slave for six years, and then go free with his wife, if he were married when he came into the relation; but if his master had given him a wife, and she had borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children should be her master's, and he should go out by himself. That is, the man by the law became free, while his wife and children remained slaves. If the servant, however, plainly said, "I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master brought him unto the judges, also unto the doorpost, and his master bored his ear through with an awl, and he served him forever." (Ex. xxi. 1-6.) Sir, you have urged discussion:--give us then your views of that passage. Tell us how that man was separated from his wife and children according to _the eternal right_. Tell us what was the condition of the woman in case the man chose to "go out" without her? Tell us if the Hebrew who thus had his ear bored by his master with an awl was not a slave for life? Tell us, lastly, whether those children were not slaves? And, while on that chapter, tell us whether in the next verses, 7-11, God did not allow the Israelite father to sell his own daughter into bondage and into polygamy by the same act of sale?