I'll put in my .02$ on that , if you don't mind.
The OT as a whole (and the NT, too) takes slavery for granted. There are rules covering the proper treatment of slaves throughout the book and the enslavement of conquered people is condoned. Enslavement for debt or as a punishment is expected. 'Slave and free' may be equal in the sight of God, but a society in which no man owns another was unthinkable and unimaginable.
The idea that "Negro Slavery" (archaic term used deliberately) is mandated by the Bible is old. The notion is based on the "Curse of Ham" (Gen 9:25), and the belief that the descendants of Ham (Gen 10:6-7) are all darkskinned, probably "Negroid" peoples. (Which is not true, exactly ; the people who pushed the curse of Ham theory had in mind West African peoples as the descendants of Ham. In actuality, the peoples the Bible lists as Ham's descendants were mainly what we would called North Africans/semitic/Berber peoples...dark, but not at all the same 'stock' of people who manned American plantations. And it was THEIR slavery the 'curse of Ham' was meant to justify, by those who misused the Bible so. But the curse was really meant to explain the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews.)
I have an old Bible in my Bible collection. It is a KJV, published by World in 1929. It must have the last justification of slavery by Genesis published in the USA. This segment appears in the back, in a list of questions and answers included for the benefit of sunday school teachers. Bolding theirs:
26. Which of Noah's sons brought a curse on his posterity by his conduct on this occasion?-Ham.
27.Do the effects of this curse continue to the present time?Where?-Yes; in Africa which was peopled by the descendants of Ham, and is the chief scene of the horrible traffic in slaves.
By 1929, the language had changed. Now, the curse is "horrible", and the victims pitied. In 1829, such an answer would have been phrased to suggest that slavery was beneficient to the Africans, that it brought them religion, and because they were under a curse, they deserved it anyway. But the Curse of Ham was never used to justify African slavery as often as one would think. In fact, darwinism was used the most, and "scientific knowledge" by the 1850s "proved" Africans were inferior, possibly subhuman. And a lot of proslavery people simply didn't care ; they thought they were profiting by slavery, and whether the Bible or science justified them didn't concern them-the only book they were interested in was their bank book.
Also around the 1850s were the proslavery extremists such as George Fitzhugh. They used economic theory to justify slavery. At times, Fitzhugh sounds like Marx. To them, the African slaves were freer, happier, and healthier than what they called the 'white slaves' of New England and Great Britain, and they incessantly urged the wealthy of those lands to enslave their factory workers and servants and reduce them to the status of personal possessions. That's slavery as a good divorced from biblical and scientific justifications.
The Christian Identity people and some others believe that certain verses of the Bible are to be interpreted allegorically : When one is told not to mix plant seeds, or fabric fibers while weaving, or not to plow with an ox and an ass yoked together, one is really being told that the races should be separated, preferably geographically. Mixed marriages are therefore an abomination, because it's forbidden to plant ,say, marigolds and tomatoes together. Oddly, these same people generally insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
You should really use a Hebrew bible if you want to offer commentary. Things have a way of getting lost in the translation.