The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1859-07-28
To THE EDITOR OF THE COURIER

MI. L. lOT T;itner his lTlcuuS) fiaVc ldDOTcu
hard to show that that the command given
to the Jews, not to retu n "the servant which
had escaped unto his MASTER" referred to
servants escaping from the heathen nations
round about them; and not servants which
had escaped from Hebrew masters. These
friends of Mr.. F. contend that the word
"Thou," with which the command begins,
means the Jewish nation, in their national
capacity, and relation to other nations. No
view can be more fallacious than this. The
laws of Moses were supposed to address them
selves to each individual separately-if this
were not so, then the laws would be binding
on the Jews only so long as they existed as
a "nation'-Or, scattered over the whole
earth as they now are, how could the CON-
mand apply at all, if not to the individual? !?
Let us take for moment the pro-slavery
view of it, and see how it works in practice.
Let the City of Philadelphia be inhabited
wholly by Jews than let 100 slaves arrive
from Virginia in this city of Jews-then
what? The Jews are the Jews of Moses; !;
the virginians are Mosaic heathen-now try
to enforce the fugitive law and what follows?
why the Jew, shaking Mr.. F. in the face of
the United States Marshal would say, "here
don't you see; this Fowler has proved that
we must not return a slave to heataen mas
ter; we choose to obey Fowler and Moses,
rather than the United States laws-they
shall live among us wherever they choose"
This would be the practical working of this
new doctrine. Again, if as F.'s friends as
sert, the law is addressed to the whole nation
and not to the individuals, then the COM
mands, 'thou shalt not stear' "thou, shall
not commit adultery" would not be broken
but by the whole nation turning thieves and
adulterers. This, the view of F.'s friends is
unworthy serious thought. The laws are
all addressed in the same manner, and apply
to individuals. Thus, the "adulterer" shall
die; the manstealer shall die; here the indi-
vidual dies for offence of the individual,
which would be unjust if the law did not ad-
dress itself to him, and thereby forbid him
from doing that for which he dies.
Lfanything more is wanting to prove that
a Jew could not return an escaped servant
to his Hebrew master, it will be found in
Deut. 22d ch.; the OK, the sheep, and the ass
is there enumerated as the living chattle
property which should be returned to their
owner. Now, if the right of future freedom
was not secured by the escape ofthe servant
why did not Moses include Man as return.
able chattle? His omission to do so proves
the exemption; and the legalright to liberty
obtained in this way, was sure guarantee
for the kind and generous treatment of the
servant by his master. 1t was constantly
impressed on the Jews, that they should not
vex nor oppress the stranger; hence it is
probable they made the condition of the
bondman so far comfortable as to offer no
inducement for escape. This was in fact,
the real Mosaic safety-yalve against oppres-
sion; and when we call to mind the awful
vengeance with which the Almighty visited
the Jews, for attempting to make servitude
perpetual, as given in Jer. 81; the whole SUBJ
ject is presented to us as it were, in letters
ofliving light.
Here leave the Old Testament part of
the subject fully certain that Mr.. F. & Co.
have left it in a less satisfactory state for
their clients than they found it; all the lead
ing elements which go to make up the alb.
horrent system here, will be sought for in
vain in the laws of Moses. If, however,
those laws gave us an extra transcript of the
infamous slave-code of Mississippi, it could
have no weight or authority whilst the re-
ligion of Christ shall endure.
The only reason why have allowed my
self to 60 to the Old Testament at all on the
subject, is, that / once gave certain amount
of weight to the shareholders arguments
drawn from it, and in this error men partake
without having duly looked into its merits
The New Testament is the true battle
ground; the Old is abrogat,d, saving only
the moral law; and that, from its inherent
merit and the universally of its application
is imperishable. a..# +.a
There is one great error into which Mr. F.
is constantly falling. He seems not to know
that the words, "master" and "servant,"
convey any other idea than that of ''owner''
and "slave;" so wherever he finds the word
''servant," he claims itas "slave." Nothing
can be more erroneous than this; the word
servant is used in Scripture In such variety
ofsenses, that we are not justified in claim
ing it to mean slave, unless there is some.
thing antecedent or subsequent to show that
"slave" is meant; and that necessary con-
dition is, apprchend, never found
From all the information have been able
to collect in my intercourse with many men
of foreign birth, l find that the words, ssmas
ter" and Servant is everywhere adopted
throughout the old world and in the older
settled parts of our own country (cven in
the free States) this form of speech prevails
In our eastern cities especially we find "ser.
wants" of various kinds advertised for in the
public journals The case of an apprentice