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?
--Is the definition correct?
is the being put under the control of another.
is the delivery of one's self to the control of another.
The one implies the consent of the rill, and the other does not. That subjection is an idea which fulfils the condition of slavery will not be disputed by any. Hence our definition is sufficiently wide to embrace that which is conceded by all. But our definition gives much greater breadth to the principle.
It takes in submission
as well as subjection
. It assumes that.
the willing or the nilling of the subject of this form of control does not necessarily enter into the principle which logically defines it. lie who is subjected to such control is a slave; and he who submits to such control is not the less so. This principle might therefore be still further generalized--control by the will of another
, with its correlative idea submission or subjection only implied.