Slavery and the ConstitutionBowditch, William I. (William Ingersoll)
Religion
Slavery and the Constitution
Bowditch, William I. (William Ingersoll)
Enslaved persons -- United States -- Social conditions; Slavery -- United States
DRAKE & THOMPSON.
"Lexington, June 17, 1838."
"$50 REWARD.--Ran away from the subscriber, his negro man,
Pauladore, commonly called Paul. I understand Gen. R. Y. Hayne _has
purchased his wife and children_ from H. L. Pinckney, Esq. and has
them now on his plantation at Goosecreek, where, no doubt, the
fellow is frequently _lurking_.
T. DAVIS."
The wife has been sold to the speculator in human flesh! The sacred
relation has been for ever sundered by God's overseer! The husband has
been orally taught to say,--"Thou shalt not commit adultery," and to
consider such to be a divine command. But he is strong and healthy, and
his master orders him to live with another woman. What is he to do? If
he obeys, he commits adultery, and disobeys God's commands. Truly a
difficult matter to settle!
What ardent prayers will the church send up to heaven, that their
brother may have strength given to him to enable him to save his
soul alive! What earnest entreaties! How solemnly will the church
remonstrate with its member against the commission of so great a
sin! And, when prayers, entreaties, remonstrances, have all been
tried and have failed, how sternly will the church proceed to the last
extremity,--excommunication! If the man who marries his deceased wife's
sister must be cut off from "membership in the Saviour's body" as
impure,[N] how much more must that man be cut off who is faithless
during his wife's lifetime?
How admirably does the Savannah River Baptist Association harmonize the
worship of God and mammon, and reconcile obedience to the commands of
the master with obedience to God! This Association, in reply to the
question (Brooke's "Slavery," p. 38),--
"Whether, in a case of involuntary separation, of such a character
as to preclude all prospect of future intercourse, the parties ought
to be allowed to marry again,"
Answer--
"That such separation among persons situated as our slaves are, is
civilly a separation by death; and they believe, that, in the sight
of God, it would be so viewed. To forbid second marriages in such
cases would be to expose the parties, not only to stronger hardships
and strong temptation, but to church-censure for acting in obedience
to their masters, who cannot be expected to acquiesce in a
regulation at variance with justice to the slaves, and to the spirit
of that command which regulates marriage among Christians. The
slaves are not free agents; and a dissolution by death is not more
entirely without their consent, and beyond their control, than by
such separation."
A similar decision was made by the Shiloh Baptist Association in
Virginia. This question was presented for solution ("The Church as it
is," pp. 76, 77),--
"Is a servant, whose husband or wife has been sold by his or her
master into a distant country, to be permitted to marry again?"
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account