Disagreeing on Slavery

According to the Declaration of Independence, signed in 1776, "[...] all men are created equal, [and] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." One would then expect that every man, would be entitled to their freedom, and it was true, for all white men. African-Americans, however, faced a very different reality. They were still forced into slavery, they were deprived of those rights that all men were meant to have. While the north states opposed slavery, it was permitted in the south, and as the slavery issue raged on, one man would stand to fight for his freedom. His case, would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court's decision would

While many have described the civil war as simply the war between the States, Bruce Levine in his book “Half Slave and Half Free: The Roots of Civil War” has put together an 80 year survey from around 1773 the pre-revolutionary era to the Civil War with well documented evidence of the social, cultural and political idealisms of our once divided nation. This book review will emphasize points on each of the book’s chapters which are put chronologically and particularly comparing the southern slave labor system to the free labor system in the north. Levine’s thesis statement on page four of his book reads as follows, “What impelled so many-rich, middling, and poor; white and black; native-born and immigrant- to risk and sacrifice so much? To answer such questions, this book reexamines the antebellum political history in the light of the broader economic, social, cultural, and ideological developments that shaped the lives of the American people”. (p. 4) Clearly the author of the book has researched numerous historical papers and has placed them in the direction his thesis will be provided with hard evidence from the founding fathers’ letters, written memos and of course the laws put into the United States constitution.

Economics was an enormous factor in the support of slavery. The South was dependent of slave labor to run the large plantations that shipped King Cotton, their main product, out to the North as well as abroad. Southerners argued that emancipation would destroy their economy. Furthermore it would hurt the economy of the North which depended on the raw materials from the South for its manufacturing. In addition to slave owners middle and lower class workers often took pro slavery positions because they did now want job competition. Four million new free people would certainly increase job competition and lower wages. In this way it is clear that economically supporters of slavery had a strong case.

As we already noted – in the 1800s expediency of slavery was disputed. While industrial North almost abandoned bondage, by the early 19th century, slavery was almost exclusively confined to the South, home to more than 90 percent of American blacks (Barney W., p. 61). Agrarian South needed free labor force in order to stimulate economic growth. In particular, whites exploited blacks in textile production. This conditioned the differences in economic and social development of the North and South, and opposing viewpoints on the social structure. “Northerners now saw slavery as a barbaric relic from the past, a barrier to secular and Christian progress that contradicted the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and degraded the free-labor aspirations of Northern society” (Barney W., p. 63).

The South’s addiction to slavery in the early 1800’s would lead to great impacts on the region, as well as the nations. Slaveries economic blessing came at the price of the nation’s

One main and obvious reason for the adamant views of anti-slavery and slavery and the ultimate unsuccess of the Missouri Compromise was the diverse circumstances between the Northern and Southern economic systems due to geography and other factors. There was a much larger number of free blacks in the North, showing the varying degree between their economic system compared to the South.(A) The economic well-being of the South, who 's revenue came mainly from farming, was based on the free labor of slaves. John C. Calhoun asserted that the "South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions.....that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of a community did not......live on the labor of the other." The abolition of slavery was viewed by the South as economic suicide. Northerners, who mainly manufactured goods and used the labor of poorly paid immigrants, viewed slavery as morally wrong as well as unnecessary. With the help of free blacks in the North who expressed their experiences as slaves and promoted liberation through propaganda, such views of

White southerners in nineteenth century America relied heavily on the institution of slavery as their source of free labor on plantations and in the home. The supporters of slavery had a hard time coming up with excuses to keeping the institution of slavery. Since abolitionism was rampant throughout the North to end slavery. This “antislavery movement struck a raw nerve in the South”1. Southerners used multiple arguments to defend the institution of slavery throughout the 1800’s but mostly used legal, religious, and economic.

The stability that slavery created in the American South between 1820 and 1860 was phenomenal. Economic stability was like no other country had ever seen, this economic stability created a global marketing network throughout many different nations, trade routes that still exist within modern America today. Slavery became the bedrock of American South livelihood; it became so valuable that it was almost seen as unimaginable to live without slavery. “It was inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed America without slave labour taking place,” this was according to……. The reason the south prospered and grew like it did was due to slavery. The value that slaves had to their slave owners was unquestionable. Slave owners were able to receive loans, whilst using their slaves as guarantors; these loans would then have been used in the purchasing of further land, more livestock and more slaves. It was also said that slave owners used their slaves to pay of any outstanding debt they may have had. It is clear to see the economic value that slaves possessed; they were included in the valuation of estates, for example; (Example), and this in turn became a source of tax revenue for the National as well as the local Governments, it was also

In the early years of the 19th century, slavery was more than ever turning into a sectional concern, such that the nation had essentially become divided along regional lines. Based on economic or moral reasoning, people of the Northern states were increasingly in support of opposition to slavery, all the while Southerners became united to defend the institution of slavery. Brought on by profound changes including regional differences in the pattern of slavery in the upper and lower South, as well as the movement of abolitionism in the North, slavery in America had transformed from an issue of politics into a moral campaign during the period of 1815-1860, ultimately polarizing the North and the South to the point in which threats of a Southern disunion would mark the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 (Goldfield et. al, The American Journey, p. 281).

The Declaration of Independence (1776), written by only educated white men – Thomas Jefferson (Southern Colony), Benjamin Franklin (Middle Colony), and John Adams (Northern Colony) - established the basic rights that citizens were entitled to in a free country. However, this document contradicted the Constitution’s claim that all men were created equal, particularly in racial and gender identifiers such as slaves, Native Americans, and women. Slaves were essential in the economic development of the South. Most southerners considered slaves as property, only three-fifths of a man, and as a result, equality for

Slavery was crucial to the Southern states as they depended on it to run their plantations,

In the podcast, Petersen recited the argument made by the Southern States during the Philadelphia Convention. According to the South, they relied on slavery for 'economic reasons'. This made me think: if we do not take the humanitarian arguments into account (ranging from Locke individual life argument in 'Two

In the nineteenth century, supporters of slavery used legal, religious, and economic arguments to defend the institution of slavery. Southern plantation owners depended heavily on slavery. Cotton, their main export, required tedious slave labor. Thus, southern supporters of slavery employed whatever tactics they could in order to keep their slaves from emancipation, which worked and extended slavery for a few more decades. As the abolition movement picked up, southerners became organized in their support of slavery in what became known as the pro-slavery movement.

After the Revolution, there was a large shift in what people considered economic freedom. There became a great divide between freedom and slavery; additionally, there became a large divide between the ways of income in northern and southern America. As indentured servitude came to an end, the northern economy was based on free labor, where people made money by “working for wages or owning a farm or shop” (Foner, 227). Former indentured servants, as well as some former slaves, benefitted from this transition as they were now paid for their work. The north turned to free labor in order to “produce social harmony and public gain” (Foner, 231), while the south continued to stick to their previous ways. The south remained dependent on slave labor

Slavery was crucial to the Southern states as they depended on it to run their plantations,