I have already noticed that the public mind has been so long abused on this subject, that it is usual for highly intelligent persons, who have no idea of affirming that the slaveholder is necessarily a sinner, to allow that slaveholding is _wrong in principle_. But this, to say the least, is a strange abuse of terms. The right or wrong of an action, in itself considered, is determined by the _principle_ which it envelops, and the moral character of the _actor_ is determined by his intention in the performance, or by his voluntary or involuntary ignorance of the principle. It is reasonable, therefore, to infer that the public attach no well-defined meaning to the phrase, the _abstract principle of slavery_. Its definite meaning, however, is indispensable in this investigation; and, indeed, on all occasions, if we would speak correctly, and avoid a misapplication of this term. What, then, is the _principle_ of the system of domestic slavery? Observe that it is the principle for which we inquire. What, then, is the system itself? For (to speak with strict philosophical propriety) our idea of the system is the chronological condition of our idea of the principle, as our idea of the principle is the logical condition of our idea of the system. We must perceive an action before we can determine what is the principle of it, although we must have an antecedent knowledge of the principle before we can determine what character that principle gives to the action. The system is made up of two correlative relations--master and slave. Here there are but two ideas--the idea of master and the idea of slave, as correlatives. These are all the ideas that enter into the system, as a system merely. Whatever abstract principle, therefore, this system envelops, is to be found in these two terms. It need not and should not be sought for anywhere else; for these two relations make the whole system. Without these it could not be a system of slavery; and with these, it is therein, and in virtue of that fact alone, a system of slavery. The answer to the question depends upon the meaning of these terms alone. What, then, is the correlative meaning of these terms? “MASTER. The Latin is _magister_, compounded of the root of _magis_, _major_, greater; and the Teutonic, _ster_, Saxon, _steoran_, _to steer_.” The word, then, signifies _a chief director_--_one who governs or directs either men or business_. The leading idea is that of governor by his own will. SLAVE. The _derivation_ of this word is not a settled question. There is no difficulty, however, in fixing the meaning--_one who is subject to the will or direction of another_.