Again, If it should be unlawful to deprive them that are lawful Captives, or Bondmen of their Liberty for Life being Heathens; it seems to be more unlawful to deprive our Brethren, of our own or other Christian Nations of the Liberty, (though but for a time) by binding them to Serve some Seven, Ten, Fifteen, and some Twenty Years, which oft times proves for their whole Life, as many have been; which in effect is the same in Nature, though different in the time, yet this was allow'd among the Jews by the Law of God; and is the constant practice of our own and other Christian Nations in the World: the which our Author by his Dogmatical Assertions cloth condemmn as Irreligious; which is Diametrically contrary to the Rules and Precepts which God hath given the diversity of men to observe in their respective Stations, Calling, and Conditions of Life, as hath been observed.
And to illustrate his Assertion our Author brings in by way of Comparison the Law of God against man Stealing, on pain of Death: Intimating thereby, that Buying and Selling of Negro's is a breach of that Law, and so deserves Death: A severe Sentence: But herein he begs the Question with a Caveat Emptor. For, in that very Chapter there is a Dispensation to the People of Israel, to have Bond men, Women, and Children, even of their own Nation in some case; and Rules given therein to be observed concerning them; Verse the 4th. And in the before cited place, Levit. 25:44, 45, 46. Though the Israelites were forbidden (ordinarily) to make Bond men and Women of their own Nation, but of Strangers, they might: the words run thus, verse 44. Both thy Bond men, and lhy Bond maids which thou shalt have shall he of the Heathen, that are round about you: of them shall you Buy Bond men and Bond maids, & c. See also, I Cor. 12:13. Whether we be Bond or Free, which shows that in the times of the New Testament, there were Bond men also, & c.
In fine, The sum of this long Haurange, is no other, than to compare the Buying and Selling of Negro's unto the Stealing of Men, and the Selling of Joseph by his Brethren, which hears no proportion therewith, nor is there any congruiety therein, as appears by the foregoing Texts.
Our Author cloth further proceed to answer some Objections of his own framing, which he supposes some might raise.
Object. 1. That these Blackamores are of the Posterity of Chain, and therefore under the Curse of Slavery. Gen. 9: 25, 26, 27. The which the Gentlemen seems to deny, saying, they ware the Seed of Canaan that were Cursed, & c.
Answ. Whether they were so or not, we shall not dispute: this may suffice, that not only the seed of Cham or Canaan, but any lawful Captives of other Heathen Nations may be made Bond men as hath been proved.
Obj. 2. That the Negroes are brought out of Pagan Countreys into places where the Gospel is Preached. To which he Replies, that we must not doe Evil that Good may come of it.
Ans. To which we answer, That it is no Evil thing to bring them out of their own Heathenish Country, where they may have the Knowledge of the True God, be Converted and Eternally saved.
Obj. 3. The Africans have Wars one with another, our Ships bring lawful Captives taken in those Wars.
To which our Author answers Conjecturally, and Doubtfully, for ought we know, that which may or may not be; which is insignificant, and proves nothing. He also compares the Negroes Wars, one Nation with another, with the Wars between Joseph and his Brethren. But where doth he read of such War? We read indeed of a Domestick Quarrel they had with him, they envyed and hated Joseph; but by what is Recorded, he was meerly passive; and meek as a Lamb. This Gentleman farther adds, That there is not any War but is unjust on one side, & c. Be it so, what doth that signify: We read of lawful Captives taken in the Wars, and lawful to be Bought and Sold without contracting the guilt of the Agressors, for which we have the example of Abraham before quoted; but if we must say while both parties Warring are in the right, there would be no lawful Captives at all to be Bought; which seems to be rediculous to imagine, and contrary to the tenour of Scripture, and all Humane Histories on the Subject.
Obj. 4. Abraham had Servants bought with his Money, and born in his House. Gen. 14:14. To which our worthy Author answers, until the Circumstances of Abraham's purchase be recorded, no Argument can be drawn from it.
Ans. To which we Reply, this is also Dogmatical, and proves nothing. He farther adds, In the mean time Charity Obliges its to conclude, that he knew it was lawful and good. Here the gentleman yields the case; for if we are in Charity bound to believe Abrahams practice, in buying and keeping Slaves in his house to be lawful and good: then it follows, that our Imitation of him in this his Moral Action, is as warrantable as that of his Faith; who is the Father of all them that believe. Rom. 4:16.
In the close of all, Our Author Quotes two more places of' Scripture, viz.; Levi!. 25:46, andJer. 34, from the 8 to the 22 v. To prove that the people of Israel were strictly forbidden the Buying and Selling one another for Slaves who questions that? And what is that to the case in hand? What a strange piece of Logick is this? Tis unlawful for Christians to Buy and Sell one another fi►r slaves. Ergo, It is unlawful to Buy and Sell Negroes that are lawful Captiv'd Heathens.
And after a Serious Exhortation to us all to Love one another according to the Command of Christ. Math. 5: 43, 44. This worthy Gentleman concludes with this Assertion, That these Lthiopvans as Black as they are, seeing they are the .Sons and Uanghters o/ the first Adam; the Brethren and Sisters of the Second Adam, and the Offspring nt'God; we ought to treat them with a respect agreeable.
,-Ins. We grant it for a certain and undeniable verity, That all Mankind are the Sons and Daughters of Adam, and the Creatures of God; But it doth not therefore follow that we are hound to love and respect all men alike; this under favour we must take leave to deny; we ought in charity, if we see our Neighbour in want, to relieve them in a regular way, but we are not hound to give them so much of our Estates, as to make them equal with our selves, because they are our Brethren, the Sons of Adam, no, not our own natural Kinsmen: We are Exhorted to do good unto all, but especially to them who are oj'the Household o/ Faith, Gal. 6:10. And we are to love, honour and respect all men according to the gift of God that is in them: I may love my Servant well, but my Son better; Charity begins at home, it would be a violation of common prudence, and a breach of good manners, to treat a Prince like a peasant. And this worthy Gentleman would deem himself much neglected, if we should show him no more Defference than to an ordinary Porter: And therefore these florid expressions, the Sons and Daughters of the First Adam, the Brethren and Sisters of the Second Adam, and the Offspring of God, seem to be misapplied to import and insinuate, that we ought to tender Pagan Negroes with all love, kindness, and equal respect as to the best of men.
By all which it doth evidently appear both by Scripture and Reason, the practice of the People of God in all Ages, both before and after the giving of the Law, and in the times of the Gospel, that there were Bond men, Women and Children commonly kept by holy and good men, and improved in Service; and therefore by the Command of God, Lev. 25:44, and theirvenerable Example, we may keep Bond men, and use them in Service still; yet with all candour, moderation and Christian prudence, according to their state and condition consonant to the Word of God.
The Negroes Character
Nothing written by any Southern racist could equal the preceding racist diatribe by a leading member of Massachusetts society. This is an example of the strong feelings of racial superiority held by Europeans of that time. Even when slavery was eliminated in the North, the racist ideology remained intact. Thus, in 1858, when Abraham Lincoln stated that he was in favor of maintaining the white race in the position of the superior race in America,83 no one was surprised.
THE VICTIMIZATION SCANDAL
Toward the latter quarter of the twentieth century, American society became painfully aware of the term "political correctness." Not since the age of the Alien and Sedition Acts, a time when publishers or even congressmen could be jailed for speaking ill of the government, have Americans experienced such a stifling of free expression and free inquiry. Political correctness has its antecedents in the
Marxist movements around the world. Mao Tse-tung was an early practitioner of Red Chinese political correctness. In the mid-sixties, Mao released hordes of young radicals (Red Guards) who terrorized citizens of China whom they deemed to be less than totally loyal to the communist revolution. To be charged by the Red Guards was tantamount to being tried and convicted. The hallmark of the Red Guard movement was, as is true with all "p.c." movements, that no evidence was needed to convict a citizen; the charge alone was sufficient to convict. Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge filled the killing fields of Cambodia with people who were charged with being too "bourgeois" in their lifestyles. Again, only the charge needed to be made; no evidence was necessary nor was it allowed in defense of the accused.
Group victimization is the foundational principle upon which the political-correctness movement stands. A victim group must first identify its "victimizer" group from which innumerable amounts of apologies and retribution will be extracted. Since the victim group is usually a minority group within society, several victim groups will unite under the banner of political correctness and advance using their collective political strength. Thus, we see the Red Guards minority in China uniting with a powerful central government to pursue their agenda; the minority Khmer Rouge of Cambodia using force to pursue their agenda; and, in the United States, various minorities uniting, with the assistance of the central government, to achieve the goals of political correctness.
Political correctness does not present itself to the public with the notion that it desires to do evil. Far from announcing evil intent, the movement is presented as the vanguard of those seeking only the betterment of people. This was the case in China, Cambodia, and even Nazi Germany. Shortly after his election as chancellor of Germany, Adolph Hitler signed into law a euthanasia act that allowed "competent" physicians to end the life of the incurably sick. This law was presented to the public as an act for the benefit of the incurably sick. Soon anyone who disagreed with the established (politically correct) view was subject to adversity. The world does not have to be reminded of the end results of this "beneficial" law.
In the United States, politically correct African-American leaders compose the most vociferous "victim" group. The self-anointed leadership continues to demand all forms of payment for what they term "the legacy of slavery." White Americans in general and Southern white Americans in particular are the objects (i.e., the victimizer group) of the mantra of "the legacy of slavery." Today, when it is noted that more African-American males are in prison than in college,84 that 68 percent of African-American children are born out of wedlock,"` or that the leading cause of death among young African-American males is murder at the hands of other African-American males,116 the response among these advocates is "the legacy of slavery." So strong is their political and social clout that few if any will dare to challenge these assertions.
For example, when attacking Southern ideas, history, or culture, facts are never allowed to stand in the way of political correctness. The charge that the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism is all that is needed to have it removed from public display. Note that an intelligent discussion of the issue of slavery and the Confederate flag has been stifled by the charge of racism. Adding insult to injury, the advocates of political correctness will charge anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of an issue as, ipso facto, part of the problem. Thus, freedom of thought, speech, and action is stifled.
The most obvious fallacy of "the legacy of slavery" myth is that slavery was a white-versus-black institution. As will be demonstrated in chapter 4, the complexion of slave ownership was never totally white. Throughout the history of American slavery, thousands of African-Americans were slaveholders. Furthermore, several historians have reported that the institution of slavery itself has its origins in a lawsuit filed by an early African-American slaveholder.87 According to this account, Anthony Johnson, one of the original Africans landed in Virginia in 1619, was sold as an indentured servant. After completing his indentureship, Johnson became a rather successful farmer and bought several indentured servants for his own use. Upon a demand by one of his servants, the servant, named John Castor, was freed from his indentureship. When Castor bound himself to another man, a Mr. Parker, Johnson filed suit against Parker (Johnson v. Parker, Northampton County, Virginia). The suit resulted in Castor being returned to Johnson as his servant for life. From this landmark decision in 1653, slavery in the South sprang. It should be noted that the main characters in this event were all Africans. Even if it can be proven that the father of Southern slavery was an African-American, supporters of victimization will still try to fix the guilt of slavery on white racists. When faced with the fact that Africans in Africa sold their fellow citizens to Europeans or with the fact of African-American involvement in the institution of slavery in America, this crowd never allows these facts to get in the way of their crusade. As with the communist purveyors, anyone who wishes to discuss facts will be charged with aiding and abetting the so-called criminal activity.
As shocking as the above-mentioned facts are, many will still maintain that a sober look at African-American society today is proof that there is a "legacy of slavery" that is causing many problems. For example, a recurring debate focuses on the allegation that the high rate of illegitimacy among African-American women is a result of the breakup of slave families. Yet the record reveals that the illegitimacy rate for African-Americans increases the further removed African-American women are from slavery. From 1890 through 1950, African-American women were just as likely to be married with children as were white women.81+ Even during slavery, slave family unity was much higher than it is in modern AfricanAmerican families.89 One would think that the most provable cause for the failure of the African-American families would be found in the present and not two or three centuries in the past.
Even if white America should concede that the legacy of slavery is deleterious to modern African-Americans, why should present- day citizens of the United States shoulder the bulk of the cost? After all, slavery existed in North America from 1641 (the date that Massachusetts legalized slavery) until the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865-a period of more than 244 years. If the date of the birth of the United States is set at July 4, 1776, one can see that slavery existed under the auspices of Great Britain for 135 years (1641 to 1776) and under the auspices of the United States for 89 years (1776 to 1865). Why should American taxpayers be called upon to pay for the actions of Great Britain? Is it right to demand that United States citizens pay for something that happened before the United States even existed? But, of course, this is exactly what political-correctness promoters are demanding, that is, payment for something that happened before any living American or the American nation was born.
It is most amazing to hear the clamorous rhetoric condemning slavery that happened more than two hundred years ago. Yet, today slavery exists in several African nations (see chapter 9), and little or no denunciation of those countries or their flags is heard. Even after the tragedy of September 11, the United States maintains the most cordial of relationships with Saudi Arabia, a nation that ended slavery almost one hundred years after it was ended in the South. Contrast the treatment of the South with that of Saudi Arabia as it relates to the issue of slavery. Which nation is most often condemned, ridiculed, and scorned due to its history of slavery? Why is the South an object of scorn while African nations such as Mauritania and Sudan, where slavery still exists today, are seldom condemned? Why is Saudi Arabia protected by American blood but never scorned for its sixty-two years of twentieth-century slavery?
These questions deserve some thought. If we are to continue as a free people, we must reject the victimization thesis of the left-of-center powerbrokers of today. Like the Marxists, America's political-correctness police of today will become the KGB storm troopers of tomorrow.
Although most people think of slavery in the New World in terms of Southern slavery, as has been shown there is much more to the history of slavery than just sl
avery in the South. The foundation of Southern slavery was laid in the days of the Ancient World. Even before African slaves became a part of the South, slavery was an ongoing institution in the New World. The driving force behind African slavery in the New World was the desire by Europeans for sugar.
The need for a large labor supply by the sugar plantations in the Caribbean made the Trans-Atlantic African slave trade possible. Long before cotton became a viable crop for export, the demand for sugar stimulated the massive movement of slaves from Africa to the New World. Under the influence first of Portugal, then Spain, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade began.
Early in the history of slavery in the New World, several breaches of the law of unintended results led the way to African slavery in Dixie. First, Queen Isabella, desiring to relieve the distress of the Native American slaves in Hispaniola, ordered the sending of African slaves to the New World. Not only did this effort not assist the Native American population, but worse still, it made African slavery the cornerstone of every European colony in the New World. About two hundred years later, a Northerner, Eli Whitney, invented the cotton gin in an effort to find a less labor-intensive method of extracting cotton fiber from its seed. The unintended result of this invention was the creation of a cotton empire in the South. This empire eventually resulted in the enslavement of some four million Africans. Only forty years after the invention of the cotton gin, in an effort to foster immediate abolition of slavery, the Radical Abolitionists began an attack upon Southern slaveholders and the South. This attack, unlike earlier efforts to end slavery, was viewed by most Southerners as a personal attack by one section of the United States against another. Even more upsetting to Southerners, the Radical Abolitionists had changed the terms of the debate against slavery. What was once a debate on ridding the nation of a poor political choice (i.e., slavery) was changed to an attack against the "sin" of slavery. By redefining slavery as a sin, the abolitionists made compromise and gradual emancipation (something the North had taken full advantage of) impossible. Thus, we see another example of an unintended result. More than merely academic curiosity, this unintended result made freedom less attainable and war a future reality.
Myths of American Slavery Page 7
