Replies

I admit that a species of _servitude_ was permitted to the Jews, but in studying the subject I have been struck with wonder and admiration at perceiving how carefully the servant was guarded from violence, injustice and wrong. I will first inform you how these servants became servants, for I think this a very important part of our subject. From consulting Horne, Calmet and the Bible, I find there were six different ways by which the Hebrews became servants legally.

1. If reduced to extreme poverty, a Hebrew might sell himself, i.e. his services, for six years, in which case _he_ received the purchase money _himself_. Lev. xxv, 39.

2. A father might sell his children as servants, i.e. his _daughters_, in which circumstance it was understood the daughter was to be the wife or daughter-in-law of the man who bought her, and the _father_ received the price. In other words, Jewish women were sold as _white women_ were in the first settlement of Virginia--as _wives_, _not_ as slaves. Ex. xxi, 7.

3. Insolvent debtors might be delivered to their creditors as servants. 2 Kings iv, 1

4. Thieves not able to make restitution for their thefts, were sold for the benefit of the injured person. Ex. xxii, 3.

5. They might be born in servitude. Ex. xxi, 4.

6. If a Hebrew had sold himself to a rich Gentile, he might be redeemed by one of his brethren at any time the money was offered; and he who redeemed him, was _not_ to take advantage of the favor thus conferred, and rule over him with rigor. Lev. xxv, 47-55."--Angelina Emily Grimke

"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."--Benjamin Rush

While not defending the institution of slavery, I think much of the discussion has been co-opted in order to push for economic concessions along racial lines.

A novel use included one of my ancestors purchasing a Jesuit priest at the priest's behest, making the priest property of the Manor Lord and untouchable under English Common Law during the Protestant Reformation in Maryland (ca. 1732). Otherwise, the priest would have been hanged, as were many others during that turmoil. The priest later purchased his freedom back after things had settled down.

My point is that while most slaves were agricultural labor within the US, and most were of African origin or ancestry, even within that framework the horrors of Uncle Tom's Cabin (a novel) were perpetrated on relatively few.

The willful damage of those who were property, an investment upon which their masters wished to show a profit (otherwise why purchase slaves to begin with?) would have run contrary to sound business practices. Slaves were often held back from the most dangerous jobs because of the investment they represented--which is why so many Irish were teamsters, longshoremen, powder monkeys, and the like as their boss had no vested interest in their well being, only in their labor, unlike slaves who were owned.

Again, I am not trying to either justify the institution, nor support its practice, just to say the broad brush with which slavery in the US has been painted is an inaccurate one.

While we might have been best off to never have had the institution, we are all unarguably better off for having abolished it.