we totally object to the term, and deny that we have any such
institution as _slavery_ among us. We recognize among us no class,
which, as the abolitionists falsely assert, that the Supreme Court
decided "had no rights which a white man was bound to respect." The
words _slave_ and _servant_ are perfectly synonymous, and differ only in
being derived from different languages; the one from Sclavonic, the
other from the Latin, just as feminine and womanly are respectively of
Latin and Saxon origin. The Saxon synonym _thrall_ has become obsolete
in our language, but some of its derivations, as thralldom, are still in
use. In Greek the same idea was expressed by _doulos_, and in Hebrew by
_ebed_. The one idea of servitude, or of obedience to the will of
another, is accurately expressed by all these terms. He who wishes to
see this topic thoroughly examined, may consult "Fletcher's Studies on
Slavery."

The word _slavery_ is used in the following discussions, to express the
condition of the _African race_ in our Southern States, as also in other
parts of the world, and in other times. This word, as defined by most
writers, does not truly express the relation which the African race in
our country, _now_ bears to the white race. In some parts of the world,
the relation has essentially changed, while the word to express it has
remained the same. In most countries of the world, especially in former
times, the _persons_ of the slaves were the absolute property of the
master, and might be used or abused, as caprice or passion might
dictate. Under the Jewish law, a slave might be beaten to death by his
master, and yet the master go entirely unpunished, unless the slave died
outright under his hand. Under the Roman law, slaves had no rights
whatever, and were scarcely recognized as human beings; indeed, they
were sometimes drowned in fish-ponds, to feed the eels. Such is not the
labor system among us. As an example of faulty definition, we will
adduce that of Paley: "Slavery," says he, "is an obligation to labor for
the benefit of the master, without the contract or consent of the
servant." Waiving, for the present, the accuracy of this definition, as
far as it goes, we would remark that it is only half of the definition;
the only idea here conveyed is that of compulsory and unrequited labor.
Such is not our labor-system. Though we prefer the term slave, yet if
this be its true definition, we must protest against its being applied
to