Slavery

Reposted from The Cripplegate.

In many ways, the modern abortion movement in the United States has historical continuity within American culture. The same culture that promoted chattel slavery is still thriving, only now it is trafficking in the murder of the unborn. It really is astonishing how similar the pro-slavery argument is with the pro-abortion argument.

Consider that United States was ironically founded with an affirmation that liberty and human freedom come from God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The American experiment began with a bold declaration that many Americans themselves didn’t even believe. By allowing slavery—in fact, allowing is too passive of a word—by institutionalizing slavery, American law declared that if all men are created equal, some people must be less than men. In order to justify the theft, possession, and immoral exploitation of a large swath of our population, Americans decided to view those kidnapped from Africa and their descendants as less than human.

They were not created equal, they did not have the same rights endowed to them by their creator. They did not have the right to liberty nor the right to pursue happiness.

Today, we conclude this article from the September 1850 issue of DeBow’s Review. ​The anonymous author presents a “Scriptural defense” of slavery from the Bible.¹

After the Israelites had been a long time in Egypt, they became servants to the Egyptians. At this time, God sent Moses, as a messenger, to bring them out of Egypt. Through Moses, God gave them laws by which they were to be governed. No law which came directly from him (the fountain of morality), can be considered morally wrong; it might be imperfect, in not providing for circumstances not then existing—but, so far as it does provide, the provisions are correct. Nothing which God ordained can be a crime, and nothing for which he gave express permission can be considered wrong.

In Leviticus xxv, we are told, that the Lord spake to Moses, saying:

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them—after various provisions of the law, the 39th verse reads as follows, in regard to servitude: If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, then shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as an hired servant, &c.

—clearly showing that there was a distinction between bond-servant and hired-servant. After providing for the case of a Hebrew servant, verses 44, 45, and 46, of the same law, read as follows:

The following essay appeared in the September 1850 issue of DeBow’s Review,​ which was one of the most important antebellum journals in the South. It appeared just as Congress was debating and passing what became known as “the Compromise of 1850.” The author is anonymous, but the piece sums up, in a remarkably straightforward way, the “Biblical argument” for slavery from a pro-Southern perspective. SharperIron does not endorse the conclusions or presuppositions of this article. However, the article stands as a historical marker; an important reminder that, if a man is desperate enough, he can “find” a way to “biblically” support his position on just about anything.¹

A very large party in the United states believe that holding slaves is morally wrong; this party founds its belief upon precepts taught in the Bible, and takes that book as the standard of morality and religion. We, also, look to the same book as our guide in the same matters; yet, we think it right to hold slaves—do hold them, and have held and used them from childhood.