Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1852-03-31

| tbe or,uipal terms are ebed and omoh |; the
first beino the same which, in the preface,
is applied 10 the Israelites in Egypt. In.
the tenth commandment. servants are clas-
sed with other articles Of property which
we are forbidden to covet. 1t would IN;
deed be- absurd TO speak of coveting hired
servant. SIsSetJ Is thus recognized in tbs
Moral lah Hi those pretepts, which were
published b5 the voice Of God himself. a.
mid the FLINDERS of Sinai which were in
scribed by his own finger Upon the tables
of stone, and which can never pass away.
1t is often said BY aboltionlsts, that the
slavery of The Hebrews, was much milder
than that in our own country. Those who
make this assertion, have usually no corr
rect idea of either the one or the other;E:
Every person, who has 4 toleraba khotf-
edge of both, knows that The assertion is
entirely unfsunded Letus examine the prin
cipal provisions of the Mosaic code respect-
ing the treatment Of slaves. We have al
ready had Occasion 10 notice, that whep 4
master beat his slave in such mannef,that
he died after a day or two, the law regarded
h i'm as sufficiently punished by the loss of
his property. The laws of the Southern
States would hardly allow master to es.
cane so easily in such case. Yet with
regard to other subjects the law of Moses.
was far from being lenient. 1t punished
With death several crimes, which our laws
scarcely punish at all: for instance, blas+
phemy, Lev. "a: 49,. Sabbath breaking,
Ex. 81: 15-Num. Is: 32-S6; dilobedi-
ence to parents or shifting or chrsing them,
Deut. 81: 1S-21-Ex. 21: Is, 17.-lf
master smote out the eye or the tooth OF hfs
servant, that is, manned him seriously i'll
any respect, he was compelled to emahci-
bate him, Ex. 21: 26, 27. That such a
law as this should be necessary, is proof
that masters among the Hebrews were more
cruel 10 their slaves than masters in ouf
country are. I do not remember ever hear
ing of such a case of manning, during res
rdence of fourteen years in VireihfasI-Ihe
mai-stealer was to be put to death, TX. III
Is. It would seem from Deut. 24:7, that
this law Rad reference TO the stealing OF an
1sraelite and it is supposed that penalty
of such severity was annexed, because the
victims of sGch theft we're sold to heather
nations, and lost the privileges Of the true
religion. See Henty's Commentaries. Az
tel all, the punishment was no greater than
that suffered BY the Sabbath breaker, and
the blasfhemer: Laws against mah.stealing
exist in the South, and probably in every
staveholding country :-"Thoh shalt not de-
livet 10 his master the servant which is esI
capped fr6fn his master unto thee" Deut:
53: 49,. "Unto Mee," means unto the ma
ton of Israel. Such is the eoinfnon iissgef
Of cotirse, the fugitive is from foreign ha-
ton. So the passage is understood by jain,
1Archeol, Sec. i71] by Henry and all 9th:
er commentators whose opinions deserve
notice. There was no statute which for
bade fugitives from Hebrew masters to be
delivered up.-There is bat one more rcgu'
lation which it is specially important to no.
tice. TITS that which gtaEaHtied to SER
tahts the ehjoyfneht 2f the Sabbath, and o.
religious privileges. Ex. %: 12-Deut. .:
IA, and 10: 70, IS: This brings 10 view
subject of more Importance than all others
together, which are connected with slavery;
Within i few years past, this subject has BE-;
gun to receive, at the South;a good degree OF
attention. II would have received still morsi
had it not been for the i'll advised move:
inents of the Northern abolitiohlsts: Il q
tb be hoped that the Sodtherh people; tfeat:
itg th6ss iiiosghehts with fnerfted ebhtehpt,
will prosecute with energy; the noble en-
terrpprise of promoting the moral aha reli.
gious improvement Of the colorea popalai
ton: ~.
Yours RESPECTFULLY;
NbVANCLU6.