George Herbert was the rector of a rural parish in Wiltshire, 1630-1633. Henry Vaughan said of him"a most glorious saint and seer”. Herbert was well-known for his christian poetry and pastoral prose. In 1671 his guide, A Priest to the Temple or the Country Parson,, though published posthumously, was a litany of sagacious pastoral advice. Herbert provides gives not only an interesting look into rural ministry in the Carolinian period but sound advice regarding all forms of government, especially domestic.
In chapter X of the Country Parson Herbert shares practical wisdom on good vs. bad servants,
“He keeps his servants between love, and fear, according as he finds them; but generally he distributes it thus, To his Children he shows more love than terror, to his servants more terror than love; but an old good servant boards a child*.”
*“boards a child” is a quaint expression meaning “borders on, approaches the status of a member of the family”.
When pondering the colonial past of America, can this same advice be heeded with various ethnos which our people encountered? For those nations who love the Crown, shouldn’t they be loved in return? This wisdom certainly echoes the word of the Lord given to Abraham,
“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Gen. 12:3
This principle is also elaborated somewhat in the Law of Moses. Deuteronomy 15:16-17 explains the treatment of bondservants who, after emancipation, might opt to serve their master for the remainder of their lives rather than live on their own. Regardless the emancipated slave was given adequate material recompensation for good work,
“And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day. And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise”
Of course, the context of the servant is one of a circumcised Hebrew or—if speaking of the new covenant—a baptized Gentile. How might this relate to antebellum slavery? This author might suggest African slaves who were 1) in communion and good standing; and 2) possessed adequate occupational skills to be reasonably self-sufficient ought to have been manumitted after six years with sufficient compensation and the option to remain upon the master’s plantings if affections existed. In America the status of a free black was ambiguous, and, though free, they usually had no enfranchisement or civil rights but retained certain economic and property ones. Black Codes in the northern states often forbade permanent residency, pushing free Negroes to relocate beyond the United States into British dominions like Canada. Thus, vagrancy could become a factor of black recidivism. Meanwhile, more stable free blacks often lent support to slave rebellion and escapism. What resulted was an untenable situation that lacked clear political demarcations. If free negros were really an ethnos, then why not grant their political leaders with lands from the vast stretches of Western territory within the union?
Implicit in the Mosaic law is a sense of brotherly love. For servants who love their master, good treatment is the order. It is not clear this existed between white and black, and the lack of charity on both sides probably diminished the odds of a more equitable outcome; hence, abolitionism, radicalism, and fratricide.
