II. Is the system (so far as it is a system, simply) of domestic slavery, enveloping this abstract principle, justified by the circumstances of the case? If so, the system itself is also _right_. Whether many slaveholders or few, or any at all, are themselves doing right in the exercise of the legal functions of that relation, are questions foreign from the present inquiries, even on the hypothesis that the system itself is right. Their conduct, be it right or wrong, (and in many cases it is right, and in many others it is no doubt wrong,) does not at all affect the truth or error of the questions now before us. It is not with the conduct of individual men that we now deal; but with the act of that great being, the State--the system of African slavery established by law in the country--and with that profound principle of truth or error which not only makes it a _system_, but makes it a right system or a wrong system, as the case may be. The philosophy which prevails on the question before us has originated two schools--the _abolitionist_ and the _anti-slavery_. The abolitionist maintain that the _abstract principle of the system is wrong_, and that therefore the system itself is wrong under all circumstances. The anti-slavery school agree with the abolitionist that the _principle is wrong_, but divide among themselves as to the conclusion they draw. Some hold that the institution itself is not wrong under all circumstances, and that therefore slaves may be held under it in given cases without guilt; and others, that the institution _is wrong in itself_, and should be abolished by the State, but that the holding of slaves under this _wrong_ system is not an act in itself _wrong_ in all cases. A strict analysis of the subject will show that here is a strange medley of principles and conclusions. I shall be found to agree with each, and to disagree with each. I _disagree_ with both on the abstract principle. Hence, I disagree with the abolitionists on the whole proposition. But I agree with the abolitionists that IF the abstract principle be _wrong_, the institution is wrong in all cases. I say with them that all who grant the antecedent of this conditional are bound to admit the consequent. Hence I disagree with the anti-slavery school in admitting that the principle is wrong; but in so far as they admit that the system may be right under given circumstances, or that slaves may be held under it without guilt, we agree. I stand, therefore, committed to the affirmative of the question, both in regard to the principle and to the institution, and hence proceed to discuss the question: I. Is the abstract principle of domestic slavery right or wrong?