Argumentative Paper On Slavery

In the essay “America’s Unjust Drug War” by Michael Huemer, Huemer discusses the facts and opinions around the subject on whether or not the recreational use of drugs should be banned by law. Huemer believes that the American government should not prohibit the use of drugs. He brings up the point on drugs and how they harm the users and the people in the user’s life; he proves that the prohibition on drugs in unjust. Huemer believes that drug prohibition is an injustice to Americans’ natural rights and questions why people can persucute those who do drugs.

Slavery has long inspired controversy among historians. Many have different views on slavery whether it was slaves lived under kind masters, or slavery was a brutal system that drove slaves into constant rebellion, but neither viewpoint is accurate although both contain some truth in it. Many masters wanted to earn profit off of slaves no matter what because some masters were kind causing the slaves to develop genuine affection for their owners. Although slaves had affection for owners they did not even question themselves when deciding to desert to Union lines when northern troops descended on the plantations during the Civil War. The experience of slaves working on cotton plantations in the 1830s and 1700s differed because of reasons unrelated to the kindness or brutality of masters. More of reasons like the plantation system, the work and discipline, the slave family, and the longevity, health, and diet of slaves.

It could be considered almost ludicrous that most African-Americans were content with their station in life. Although that was how they were portrayed to the white people, it was a complete myth. Most slaves were dissatisfied with their stations in life, and longed to have the right of freedom. Their owners were acutely conscious of this fact and went to great lengths to prevent slave uprisings from occurring. An example of a drastic measure would be the prohibition of slaves receiving letters. They were also not allowed to converge outside church after services, in hopes of stopping conspiracy. Yet the slaves still managed to fight back. In 1800, the first major slave rebellion was conceived. Gabriel Prosser was a 24 year old slave who

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the issue of African slavery in America in the antebellum by late eighteenth century and before the antebellum crisis as discussed in Paul Finkelman’s book: Defending Slavery.

Slave as defined by the dictionary means that a slave is a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant. So why is it that every time you go and visit a historical place like the Hampton-Preston mansion in Columbia South Carolina, the Lowell Factory where the mill girls work in Massachusetts or the Old town of Williamsburg Virginia they only talk about the good things that happened at these place, like such things as who owned them, who worked them, how they were financed and what life was like for the owners. They never talk about the background information of the lower level people like the slaves or servants who helped take care and run these places behind the scenes.

Slavery was not fully addressed in the Constitution, in fact the word slavery was not mentioned in the constitution. There different sections in the constitution that prevent the government's involvement with slavery. Some may say that if government had the power to ban slavery the Southern states would refuse unite with the Northern states. It seems that the framers of the Constitution were trying to keep the South happy in order to keep the country United. The framers had no way to avoid slavery at that time, they did what they needed to do in order to keep the country together.

Slavery has a lot of effects on African Americans today. History of slavery is marked for civil rights. Indeed, slavery began with civilization. With farming’s development, war could be taken as slavery. Slavery that lives in Western go back 10,000 years to Mesopotamia. Today, most of them move to Iraq, where a male slave had to focus on cultivation. Female slaves were as sexual services for white people also their masters at that time, having freedom only when their masters died.

Acquiring new land in the west brought about many arguments regarding the issue of slavery. The main problem was whether or not slavery should be allowed in the new western territories. Due to this issue, any further expansion was halted. Slavery was a huge issue between the north and south. Each region had their own strong opinions. These opinions made it difficult for the two political parties to earn approval from the vast beliefs from all the different religions. Northerners opposed the idea of slavery in the western land. They believed that if slavery was allowed in the new territories that wealthy southern farmers would purchase the land to create large plantations. Additionally, northerners preferred not to co-exist with African Americans,

Slavery, especially in America, has been an age old topic of riveting discussions. Specialist and other researchers have been digging around for countless years looking for answers to the many questions that such an activity provided. They have looked into the economics of slavery, slave demography, slave culture, slave treatment, and slave-owner ideology (p. ix). Despite slavery being a global issue, the main focus is always on American slavery. Peter Kolchin effectively illustrates in his book, American Slavery how slavery evolved alongside of historical controversy, the slave-owner relationship, how slavery changed over time, and how America compared to other slave nations around the world.

In 1787, delegates arrived in Philadelphia to begin work on revising the Articles of Confederation. Most states agreed that the Articles had not provided the country with the type of guidelines that it needed to run smoothly. There were many things missing, and many issues that needed further consideration. One of the most controversial topics at the Constitutional Convention was figuring out the country's policy towards slavery. When all was said and done, slavery was still legal after the Convention because the southern economy depended on it and because most people decided that this was an issue that should be decided by each individual state, rather than the country as a whole.

There has been much debate on the topic of slavery in the early times, although most of the countries considered slavery as a criminal activity. Some countries such as Myanmar and Sudan do not abolish it. They even expedite the slavery system. It is no doubt that slavery violent the human rights. However, it was commonly spread in the early times from 17th to 19th century. In this research, I will talk about the origin of the slavery, the reasons for people to becoming slave and the life of the slave.

In pre-modern times, drugs took on a role of medicinal use. As they were distributed in a free market without any constraints, Opium was recommended for sleepless nights, Cocaine for anesthesia, Hashish for relaxation (Hart, Ksir & Ray). These drugs were not dubbed as harmful, therefore, under the appropriate circumstances, provided beneficial effects to its users. More recently, individuals are more inclined to use drugs as an ‘escape’. Stimulants provide a sort of alternate existence which tends to reduce mental tension, increase energy, or induce euphoria (Hart, Ksir & Ray). Argumentatively speaking, drug use only affects the user, so there is no valid reasoning for impairing the freedom of citizens by prohibiting them. Individuals benefit by having the freedom to use

The state justifies its authority in restricting individuals’ access to drugs through the liberty-limiting principle of paternalism. By paternalism I am referring to hard paternalism because information on drugs are made widely available so individual are aware of the harm. This essay will argue that the state is not justified in this paternalistic approach because paternalism is incompatible with personal autonomy and is significant to an individual’s freedom to act as they wish according to their values. The essay will regard drugs as drugs that are banned and criminalised in most political institutions such as marijuana and cocaine. I will appeal to the implications of accepting paternalism towards drugs on the subsequent action that must be taken towards other potential. This will highlight the incompatibility between personal autonomy and paternalism. In order to prove the significance of autonomy I will use the principles of Frankfurt and Dworkin. Then I will appeal to the ethics of utilitarianism due to the underlying consequential motive of paternalism to address counter argument by

During the Antebellum period, the issue of slavery affected many religious and political debates. This was seen in the Lincoln Douglass debates, legislation, and the evolution of political parties.

A central belief of the liberal atmosphere on which western legal systems are fundamentally based is that of negative freedom, to do as one wills, provided that it causes no harm to others. But a question which goes to the heart of the ethics of allowing total individual freedom with minimal intervention from society can be characterized like so; where to draw the line between freedom and condemnation?  When is interference with individuals and their private morality justified? The harm principle, which seeks to introduce personal liberty and its coexistence with society, appears in John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty”, first published in 1859. However, the idea is not black and white - the harm principle can be criticized for its excessive paternalism, lack of clarity, and incomplete handling of certain situations. In this essay, I will argue that Mill thoroughly justifies his theory for the harm principle. To make this argument, I will examine the harm principle, evaluate possible counterarguments, then apply the Harm Principle to a real-life scenario.