own profit and behoof. True, he may have
possessed himself of servants without first
asking the consent of the servants; and he
may have often done. this for his own benefit.
But the moral law did not permit him to do
this for his own benefit, but exclusively for the
benefit of the parties whom he may have
taken into his service, in this respect the
Abrahamic or patriarchal system of servi-
tude was very unlike the involuntary servi-
tude in the southern part of the United States
of America, where the negro has been brought
by the hand of violence, and sold in a slave-
market without his consent with no view to
the benefit of the slave himself, the aggran-
dizement of the master being the only consid
eration which deprived the negro of the wild
freedom of Africa, and reduced him to the
condition of an absolute slave—a chattel per-
sonal—in Georgia. The servants of Abra-
ham were but his subjects, and were only
slaves so far as a despotic government can
render those who acknowledge allegiance to
that government, slaves. The then condition
of things demanded that the government
should be despotic. It was necessary for the
good of the whole that all the prerogatives of
government should be vested in one man—
that the administration of goverment should
be controlled by one band, directed by giant
strength, a strong will and a powerful
mind.
Another very observable difference between
the patriarchal system of servitude and the
involuntary servitude of the South, is that
the members of the tribe of Abraham enjoyed
personal, if not political, liberty. Under the
regime of the former, the subject had a power
over himself—over his own actions and des-
tiny. The relation which he held to In's mas-
ter, or rather his sovereign, was that of a
hired, rather than a bond servant. The mari-
tal obligations were respected, and every do-
mestic relation was duly regarded. In no
case when a servant was bought or sold, was
he separated from his wife or child, or when
so separated, always in violation of the moral
law which was intended to regulate slavery
as well as every other relation or system,
either political, commercial, social or domes-
tic. In no case were slaves regarded as chat-
tels personal—in no case were they raised for
the public market, and whenever purchased
they became members of the master's house-
hold, and were governed by the matter as
the sovereign rather than as their owner.
The moral law justified this because the weak-
ness of the servant and the strength of the
master made it necessary and expedient for
the good of all, that the servant should be
under the guardianship, governance and pro-
tection—mark the word—protection of the
master. The servant knew no other law—
than the will of the master, and the master
knew no superior, and was under no obliga-
tions save to govern his own people well—to |
properly administer the affairs of his own
little tribe or nation.
In the Southern States of America, the re-
verse of all this is true. In the first place,
the marital relations are not properly re-
garded, and as a general thing the matter of
the propagation of the race of negroes in ac-
cordance with the moral law, is with the mas-
ter a secondary consideration. He desires
that his family of servants should be in-
creased, and is not much troubled as to
whether the increase be in strict accordance
with the moral law or not. The profit aris-
ing from the increase is the same, and he is
satisfied. It is notoriously true, and painful
to contemplate, that of all the most degraded
nations on the face of God's earth, there is
not to be found a people who of themselves
are so utterly regardless of the martial obli-
gations as the negroes of the South. The
same cannot be said of the wild savage of
America, the Hottentot of Africa, the wild
man of Australia, or the rover of Arabia or
Tartary, The Southern master is under the
most sacred obligations. under the moral law,
to diligently cultivate the morals of his ser-
vant; yet it is notoriously true that he looks
to their morals only so far as his own interest
may demand it. The slaves of the South, it
must beconfessed, are not habitual drunk-
ards, but the reason tor this is apparent. A a
drunkards they are not and cannot be profit-
able servants. But if intoxicating beverages
were more easily and cheaply obtained, and
drunkenness did not diminish the value of
the labor of the slave, however much it might
have the effect to demoralize him, the sobriety
of the slave would be to the master a matter
of minor moment. To the credit of Southern
roasters be it said, however, that there are
many noble exceptions to this rule—but un-
fortunately these are only exceptions.
The slave of the Southern master enjoys no
liberty, either personal or political. He is in
many, if not all respects, a mere chattel—if
not legally so. However much in violation of
both the letter and spirit of the moral law, he
is by custom and common usage, little if at
all elevated above the condition of a beast.
Like beasts of harden, he is raised for the ex-
clusive use and behoof of the master—to be
torn away, if the necessities or interest of the
master require it, from every thing he holds
dear in this life—from the home of his child-
hood—from father, mother, wife children,
friends and acquaintances—from his native
hills—from the purling brooks and rippling
streams where in ills early boyhood be was
wont to bathe in wild, unrestrained playful-
ness, and carried to the slave market without
a single fault to justify it, and be mercilessly
sold to strangers.
With all these, and many other and equally-
striking differences between the Abrahamic
or patriarchal system of servitude and the
condition of slavery in the South, how can |
