As a concrete, _master_ means one who is governing _in some particular instance or form_ by his own will; and _slave_, one who is so governed _in some particular instance_. But these are _abstract_ terms. The ideas they convey may be conceived and held in the mind, apart from any particular application of the one or the other. And whether they are considered as abstract or concrete terms, they are correlatives--the one implies the other. A _system_ of slavery is a state or order of things established by law or custom, in which one set of men are the masters to a given extent, and another are the slaves to that extent. _Domestic_ slavery is an instance in which the order or state of things constituting the system itself, is made a part of the family relation. The head of the family is the _master_, and the slave is subject, as to the use of his time and labor, to the control of the master, as the other members of the family. Domestic slavery, therefore, is one of the forms of the _general_ system of slavery. The system has existed under various forms. The ancient system of villanage in England, of serfdom in Russia, the peon system of Mexico, as well as domestic slavery in the United States, are all examples of slavery proper. This leads us to remark that the terms _master_ and _slave_ are not only abstract but _general abstract_ terms: _general_, because the abstract ideas they convey are common to each of these conditions. Each of these systems is pervaded by generic principles or ideas, which classify the whole as belonging to the same genus--system of slavery. The abstract principle of slavery is therefore the general idea, which is enveloped alike in each and every form or system of slavery. Hence, as the abstract idea of master is governing by one’s own will, and that of slave is submission or subjection to such control; and as a system of slavery is a condition into which these ideas enter in correlation--it follows that _the abstract principle of slavery is the general principle of submission or subjection to control by the will of another_. This is the fundamental idea which is common to every form of slavery. No condition into which this does not enter as a fundamental idea is a state of slavery. Every condition into which it enters is a state of slavery to the extent in which it does so enter. _Submission or subjection to control by the will of another_ being our definition of the abstract principle of the system of slavery, two questions arise: First--Is this a correct definition? and second--If it be correct, is it a sound, legitimate principle, which may and ought to be adopted in practice, whenever it may be wise to do so? _First_--Is the definition correct?