SLAVERY
40
SLAVERY
Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, fol-
lowing the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept
slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Chris-
tian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their
masters, and to bear with their condition patiently.
This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it
became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of
the schools; and so it remained without any con-
spicuous modification till towards the end of the
eighteenth century. We may take as representative
de Lugo's statement of the chief argument ofi'ered in
proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses,
is not in itself contrary to the natural law. "Slavery
consists in this, that a man is obliged, for his whole
life, to devote his labour and services to a master.
Now as anybody may justly bind himself, for the sake
of some anticipated reward, to give his entire services
to a master for a year, and he would in justice be
bound to fulfil this contract, why may not he bind
himself in like manner for a longer period, even for his
entire lifetime, an obligation which would constitute
slavery? " (De Justitia et Jure, disp. VI, sec. 2. no. 14.)
It must be observed that the defence of what may be termed theoretical slavery was by no means in- tended to be a justification of slavery as it existed historically, with all its attendant, and almost inevitably attendant, abuses, disregarding the natural rights of the slave and entailing pernicious conse- quences on the character of the slave-holding class, as well as on society in general. Concurrently with the affirmation that slavery is not against the natural law, the morahsts specify what are the natural inviolable rights of the slave, and the corresponding duties of the owner. The gist of this teaching is summarized by Cardinal Gerdil (1718-1802) : "Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle. Wherefore they erred who in former times refused to include slaves among persons; and believed that however barbarously the master treated his slave he did not violate any right of the slave. For slavery does not abohsh the natural equality of men: hence by slavery one man is understood to become subject to the do- minion of another to the extent that the master has a perpetual right to all those services which one man may justly perform for another; and subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely" (Comp. Instit. Civil., L, vii). The master was judged to sin against justice if he treated his slave cruelly, if he overloaded him with labour, deprived him of adequate food and cloth- ing, or if he separated husband from wife, or the mother from her young children. It may be said that the approved ethical view of slavery was that while, religiously speaking, it could not be condemned as against the natural law, and had on its side the jus gentium, it was looked upon with [disfavour as at best merely tolerable, and when judged by its conse- quences, a positive evil.
The later moralists, that is to say, broadly speak- ing, those who have written since the end of the eighteenth century, though in fundamental agreement with their predecessors, have somewhat shifted the perspective. In possession of the bad historical record of slavery and familiar with a Christian struc- ture of society from which slavery had been elimi- nated, these later moralists emphasize more than did the older ones the reasons for condemning slavery; and they lay less stress on those in its favour. While they admit that it is not, theoretically speaking at least, contrary to the natural law, they hold that it is hardly compatible with the dignity of personality, and is to be condemned as immoral on account of the evil consefiuonces it almost inevitably leads to. It is but little in keeping with human dignity that one man should so far lie deprived of his liberty as to be jier- petually subject to the will of a master in everything
that concerns his external hfe; that he should be com-
pelled to spend his entire labour for the benefit of
another and receive in return only a bare subsistence.
This condition of degradation is aggravated by the
fact that the slave is, generally, deprived of all means
of intellectual development for himself or for his chil-
dren. This life almost inevitably leads to the de-
struction of a proper sense of self-respect, blunts the
intellectual faculties, weakens the sense of responsi-
bility, and results in a degraded moral standard. On
the other hand, the exercise of the slave-master's
power, too seldom sufficiently restrained by a sense of
justice or Christian feeling, tends to develop arro-
gance, pride, and a tyrannical disposition, which in
the long run comes to treat the slave as a being with
no rights at all. Besides, as history amply proves,
the presence of a slave population breeds a vast
amount of sexual immorality among the slave-own-
ing class, and, to borrow a phi-ase of Lecky, tends to
cast a stigma on all labour and to degrade and im-
poverish the free poor.
Even granting that slavery, when attended with a due regard for the rights of the slave, is not in itself intrinsically wrong, there still remains the important question of the titles by which a master can justly own a slave. The least debatable one, voluntary ac- ceptance of slavery, we have already noticed. An- other one that was looked upon as legitimate was purchase. Although it is against natural justice to treat a person as a mere commodity or thing of com- merce, nevertheless the labour of a man for his whole lifetime is something that may be lawfully bought and sold. Owing to the exalted notion that prevailed in earher times about the patria potestas, a father was granted the right to sell his son into slavery, if he could not otherwise relieve his own dire distress. But the theologians held that if he should afterwards be able to do so, the father was bound to redeem the slave, and the master was bound to set him free if anj'body offered to repay him the price he had paid. To sell old or worn-out slaves to anybody who was Ukely to prove a cruel master, to separate by sale husband and wife, or a mother and her little children, was looked upon as wrong and forbidden. Another title was war. If a man forfeited his life so that he could be justly put to death, this punishment might be commuted into the mitigated penalty of slavery, or penal servitude for life. On the same principle that slavery is a lesser evil than death, captives taken in war, who, according to the ethical ideas of the jus gentium, might lawfully bo put to death by the vic- tors, were instead reduced to slavery. Whate\'cr justi- fication this practice may have had in the jus gentium of former ages, none could be found for it now.
When slavery prevailed as part of the social organ- ization and the slaves were ranked as property, it seemed not unreasonable that the old juridical maxim, Partus seguitur ventrem, should be accepted as peremp- torily settling the status of children born in slavery. But it would be difficult to find any justification for this title in the natural law, except on the theory that the institution of slavery was, in certain conditions, necessary to the permanence of the social organiza- tion. An insufficient reason frequently offered in defence of it was that the master acquired a right to the children as compensation for the exi5ense he incurred in their support, which could not be provided by the mother who possessed nothing of her own. Nor is there much cogency in the other plea, i. e. that a person born in slavery was [iresimied to consent tacitly to remaining in thai condition, as there was no way open to him to enter any other. It is umieces- sary to observe that the practice of capturing savages or barbarians for th<' i)urpo.se of making slaves of them has always been condenmed as a heinous offence against justice, and no just title could be created by this procedure. Was it lawful for owners to retain
