to put himself entirely at their disposal, and lead them off to a distant land? “Compare this with the condition of things in the United States. Here, it is regarded as essential to the security of the life of the master that slaves shall never be intrusted with arms. ‘A slave is not allowed to keep or carry a weapon.’[A] ‘He cannot go from the tenement of his master, or other person with whom he lives, without a pass, or something to show that he is proceeding by authority from his master, employer, or overseer.’[B] ‘For keeping or carrying a gun, or powder, or _shot_, or _club_, or _other weapon whatsoever_, offensive or defensive, a slave incurs, for each offence, thirty-nine lashes, by order of a justice of the peace;’[C] and in North Carolina and Tennessee, twenty lashes, by the nearest constable, _without_ a conviction by the justice.[D] Here, there is every precaution from laws, and from the dread of the most fearful kind of punishment, against the escape of slaves. Here, there is a constant apprehension that they may rise against their masters, and every security is taken against their organization and combination. Here, there is probably not a single master who would, if he owned three hundred slaves, _dare_ to put arms in their hands, and lead them off on an expedition against a foe. If the uniform precautions and care at the South against arming the slaves, or allowing them to become acquainted with their own strength, be any expression of the nature of the system, slavery in the United States is a very different thing from servitude in the time of Abraham; and it does not prove that in the species of servitude existing here it is right to refer to the case of Abraham, and to say that it is ‘_a good patriarchal system_.’ Let the cases be made parallel before the names of the patriarchs are called in to justify the system. But—