2. Ineligibility to office.  Then females are slaves.

3. Taxation without representation.  Then three-fourths of the people of Rhode Island are slaves, and all in the District of Columbia.

4. Privation of one’s oath in law.  Then the free colored people of Ohio are slaves.  So are disbelievers in a future retribution, generally.

5. Privation of trial by jury.  Then all in France and Germany are slaves.

6. Being required to support a particular religion.  Then the people of England are slaves. [To the preceding may be added all other disabilities, merely political.]

7. Cruelty and oppression.  Wives are often cruelly treated; hired domestics are often oppressed; but these forms of oppression are not slavery.

8. Apprenticeship.  The rights and duties of master and apprentice are correlative and reciprocal.  The claim of each upon the other results from the obligation of each to the other.  Apprenticeship is based on the principle of equivalent for value received.  The rights of the apprentice are secured, and his interests are promoted equally with those of the master.  Indeed, while the law of apprenticeship is just to the master, it is benevolent to the apprentice.  Its main design is rather to benefit the apprentice than the master.  It promotes the interests of the former, while it guards from injury those of the latter in doing it.  It secures to the master a mere legal compensation, while it secures to the apprentice both a legal compensation, and a virtual gratuity in addition, the apprentice being of the two decidedly the greatest gainer.  The law not only recognizes the right of the apprentice to a reward for his labor, but appoints the wages, and enforces the payment.  The master’s claim covers only the services of the apprentice.  The apprentice’s claim covers equally the services of the master.  The master cannot hold the apprentice as property, nor the apprentice the master; but each holds property in the services of the other, and BOTH EQUALLY.  Is this slavery?

9. Filial subordination and parental claims.  Both are nature’s dictates, and indispensable to the existence of the social state; their design the promotion of mutual welfare; and the means, those natural affections created by the relation of parent and child, and blending them in one by irrepressible affinities; and thus, while exciting each to discharge those offices incidental to the relation, they constitute a shield for mutual protection.  The parent’s legal claim to the services of his children, while minors, is a slight boon for the care and toil of their rearing, to say nothing of outlays for support and education.  This provision for the good of the whole, is, with the greater part of mankind, indispensable to the preservation of the family state.  The child, in helping his parents, helps himself—­increases a common stock, in which he has a share; while his most faithful services do but acknowledge a debt that money cannot cancel.