In one thing, however, the American Slave-owner and the Hebrew Lawgiver are agreed. Both think, and with good reason, that Slavery and Free Labour cannot well exist together. The Hebrew Lawgiver therefore takes measures to diminish Slavery in his country. The American Slave-owner proposes to put an end to the freedom of labour all over the world.
There is one thing more to be mentioned. Decisive experience has shewn that Slavery cannot hold its ground without a fugitive slave law. Now the law of Moses says, “Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.”[1] Southern theologians try to get rid of the apparent immorality of this passage by maintaining that it relates only to slaves who have fled from a foreign country. It is difficult to see any ground for this gloss, more especially as even in heathen Greece the right of asylum in certain temples was allowed, alone of religious privileges, to the slave. But suppose it were so, the law would in effect enjoin the Hebrews to risk a quarrel and perhaps a war with a foreign country rather than give up fugitive slaves. A singular mode of impressing the sanctity and beneficence of Slavery on their minds.
Lastly, let us ask what was the practical effect of the Mosaic legislation in the matter of Slavery? Was the nation of Moses a Slave Power?
