How Have White Historians In The Past Described As A 'Modern' Institution?

In the article “The Central Theme of Southern Slavery” Ulrich B. Phillips asserts that among several other motives that served as a drive for white Southerners to support slavery, the predominant one was their desire to preserve white supremacy in the South. He claims that all of the states in the US are similar except for the opinion about slavery. Phillips emphasizes that the idea of slavery in the South was important and perceived by southerners as heritage and a tradition. He also claims that the institution wasn’t merely economic, but also a system of social order. In addition, the white southerners saw abolition as a major threat to their economic freedom. According to Phillips, some Southerners saw deportation of african-american citizens as another solution to the slavery crisis in the United States. However,

Potter argues there are four basic position held by politicians of free and slave states in their views on solving the territorial issue. The first was David Wilmot’s, “that Congress possessed power to regulate slavery in the territories and should use it for the total exclusion of the institution.” The second proposal was to extend the 36 degree Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, allowing slavery south of this line. The Third, known as the popular sovereignty proposal, is where the territorial government, not Congress, possesses the control over the decisions on slavery in the territory. The fourth, contends “that

Discuss the rationale and ramifications of turning to the slaves for both sides and the impact on the slaves as a result.

Topic: How did the institution of chattel slavery shape the development of the American Republic from 1783 to 1860?

The question I chose to cover this week is, “Why did so few Southern whites own slaves?, and also, “Why did the non slaveholding whites not oppose the institution of slavery?” In general you could imagine that the Southern slavery would be pictures as large plantations with hundreds of slaves. In all reality, in such situations it was actually very rare for them to have a lot of slaves. Almost 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; but of those who did, 88% owned about twenty or less. Whites who did not own slaves were primarily yeoman farmers. Generally speaking, the institution of slavery did not help these people. And yet most non-slaveholding white Southerners identified with and defended the institution of slavery. Though many

In the time period between 1775 and 1830, African Americans start to gain more freedom in the North while the institution of slavery expanded in the South. These changes occurred due to the existence of different point of views. The North did not need slavery and acknowledge the cons of slavery while the South’s want for slavery quickly became a need.

1. Do you think the slave economy increased sectional tension in the antebellum period? How so?

There has been many historians and theorists who have tackled colonial slavery. One of them is Ira Berlin whose book Many Thousands Gone is his take on slavery diversity in American history and how slavery is at the epicenter of economic production, amongst other things. He separates the book into three generations: charter, plantation and revolutionary, across four geographic areas: Chesapeake, New England, the Lower country and the lower Mississippi valley. In this paper, I will discuss the differences between the charter and plantation generations, the changes in work and living conditions, resistance, free blacks and changes in manumission.

Economically, slavery allowed for an increased source of income that indentured servitude could not compete with. Shortly following the founding of Jamestown, indentured servants paid their way to the colonies with the promise of a designated time of labor upon arrival.

During the 19th century, so known “peculiar institution” of slavery dominated labor systems of the American South, also dominated most production in the US and led to a boost of the economy of the New Republic. By the 1850 's, US had become a country segregated into two regional identities, known as the Slave South and the Free North. While the South maintained a pro-slavery identity that supported and protected the expansion of slavery westward, the North largely held abolitionist views and opposed the slavery’s westward expansion. Until the 1850 's the nation uncertainly balanced the slavery subject between the two opponents. However, the acquisition of the Louisiana territories in 1803 by the Jefferson administration doubled the size of the US and the victory in the Mexican-American War extended the territory to the Pacific which quadrupled the area of the US. Ultimately, the territorial expansion led to the spread of slavery. In this essay, I will describe some of the reasons for the expansion of slavery including its influence in national politics, and consequences such as political debates and crises of 1850’s.

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

Though initially considered to be a ‘compromise’ and intended to lessen the tensions between the North and South, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ultimately served as a vehicle to fight against slavery. Common citizens rebelled against their supposed responsibilities to return slaves to their masters, and resisted the punishments handed down. By polarizing the nation in such a way,

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).

In American history, every event and person plays a part in the future. For example, rich plantation owners helped America advance their economy. However, that would not have been at all possible without the help of their slaves. The time and institution of slavery is a time of historical remembrance. It played a primary role during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. The treatment, labor conditions, and personal stories of these slaves’ treatment and labor conditions are all widely discussed around the world to this day.

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).