Pro Slavery And Anti Slavery

Much debate was caused by the fact that the North was anti slavery and the South was pro slavery. Both sides had opposing views about slavery and how it should be dealt with. The North had several negative things to say about it, whereas the South, obviously had a few positive factors to mention. If it were not for the creation of the cotton gin, the conflict between the two sides would have aroused. The South’s main argument was that slaves were mandatory for economic growth, while countless people in the North strongly refuted the statement. The South would have commanded more intense and severe work within the slaves, which would have sparked more discussion about the subject of matter.

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 year is 1845 and in the heart of alabama there is a plantation with an abusive owner named Jamison, and Jamison owns many slaves all of which work in the fields of his plantation. One of these slaves is a 15 year old boy named Kali. Kali was separated from his mother when he was just 3 years old and has almost no memory of who she was, as this was with most slaves at the time. Kali goes out at the crack of dawn and immediately starts collecting cotton which would be sold in a market later that day, he would not get a break until dusk which then he was given his only food for the day, mashed corn with a small piece of bread. Everyday in the field he was forced to deal with one of his overseers constantly breathing on his neck so that if

Slavery is the act of owning a person, making them the legal property of another and forced to obey the defined owner. It was the dominant form of labor in the country of the United States between 1815-1861. This was a country that stood for liberty and freedom, and the way they operated was based off of controlling and forcing others to complete tasks. James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson were President during this time span, and each had different views and morals when it came to slavery. James Madison, the first of the four to run his term, was a key contributor to the Bill of Rights. He believed in human rights especially rights to liberty and property. In an article written to address Madison and other’s views and inputs in the bill, it states “They[George Mason, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson] were men for whom ‘possessing property’ was a natural and an inherited right. And a substantial portion of the property that each owned was slaves”(Roger Wilkins). James Madison wrote in the Bill of Rights each man’s individual liberties and freedoms, and still goes on and with his rights, such as that to own property, he owns other men. James Madison was not someone known to be against slavery, however, he was not a supporter, he merely believed he had the right to property, and with the knowledge that slaves were property he gave himself the right to own slaves.

In 1928 Ulrich B. Phillips wrote an argumentative essay about the reasons for the massive support that slavery received from both slaveowners and Southerners who didn’t possess slaves. The essay was well-received and supported by critics in the 1930-s. However, closer to 1950-s critics started doubting the objectivity of Phillip’s writing. It’s important to note that Ulrich B. Phillips is a white historian from the South, writing from a perspective of a white Southerner. When he was writing his article he failed to step back from his bias and provide fully objective support for the main theme of his argument, setting a doubt to the reliability of his work.

The crux of a pro-slavery argument is entrenched in Paternalism. This is the exertion of power over someone in a lower standing, supplemented by the claim that it is in their ‘best interest.’ Often, this is untrue. It is, in fact, stifling those stepped on by the current wielder of power. George Fitzhugh would assert that negroes would not wish to live as free laborers the way the white man does because “he works longer and harder” for what would amount to less than what a slave would get for the same amount of work. The first issue found within this statement is the fact that many slaves received no allowances at all, and labored for no benefit to themselves past the hope of escaping punishment and sale. He also negates the fact that personal freedom and liberty are intrinsic in living a full life. An easy mistake for him to make, seeing as he has never had these rights physically taken from him before, so

Calhoun stated, “Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day,attained a condition so civilized and so improved,”.John C. Calhoun a defender of slavery says this making it as though slavery was good for themselves but also good for the impact on the slaves or African Americans.Second, in Slavery a Positive good William Joseph Harper says that slavery stops the evils of civilization as douglass says it is the evil, as Harper exclaims, “anticipates the benefits of civilization and retards the evils of civilization.” This exhibits that in the pro-slavery argument they think as slavery a good and not an evil while Douglass clearly thinks badly of slavery as he was one of the leading abolitionists.Third and last of all, in the Slavery a Positive Good James Henry Hammond says the laws of slavery is peaceful and dulcet.Like he states, “ abolition was a threat to the peaceful and harmonious implementation of necessary social laws.”This ratifies that as defenders thought that these laws were right for peace Douglass states multiple times how slavery is tearing families apart from each other and their homes and how they are treated worse then

During the Antebellum period, with the emergence of the Second Great Awakening provoked lots of political and social reforms such as abolitionism and changes within the religion of Christianity. However, despite having all of these changes, the creation of the cotton gin was absolutely on of the more significant one because it created a more efficient way to produce cotton, thus needing more labor to operate such machinery. Therefore, whilst the antebellum period is occurring it caused a split of the North and the South for the sole reason of moral standing on the subject of slavery. The pro- slavery argument derived from the position on economic and political and social unity, however, the anti- slavery arguments were positioned on a religious and ethical standing. Furthermore, these arguments would result in women becoming more involved in politics by opposing the inequality of the rights given to them by man, and the split of Christianity in two section, one of the southern countrymen and the other of non- slave owning people by classifying southern countrymen as hypocritical to their religious beliefs.

Northern states feel sympathy towards the slaves since they believed that the slaves have to work very long in the cotton field with little rest. On the other hand, the South believed that the slaves were treated well with care and were given liberty (Doc.#3). As a result, slavery was abolished in the North and the social difference between the North and the South eventually led to the abolitionist movement. It is a movement for the abolition or the end of slavery. The movement tried to stop slavery with different methods: protest, political action, publishing, forming groups and societies, developing a colonization program (Liberia) and using the Underground Railroad. The American Anti-Slavery society was one of the most famous abolitionist organizations. It had more than 150,000 members (mostly from the Northern States) and still expands as more people wanted to stop slavery. The American Anti- slavery Society believed that slavery was a cruel crime people shouldn’t do and was against Christian teachings (Document#2a). The Southern states opposed this movement because it’s against their interests while the Northern states favored it since they wanted to stop slavery or stop the spread of slavery. They opposed everything that would spread slavery such as the war with

The issue of slavery was becoming more and more prominent in the years between 1820 and 1865, and was creating a lot of sectional tension between the North, who tended to hold abolitionist beliefs, and the South, who were generally pro-slavery. Many arguments were used to defend slavery, but many of these arguments ignored some crucial details. For instance, moral arguments against slavery tended to ignore the horrible conditions slaves were forced to live in; economic arguments ignored many viable solutions to their problem; and political arguments ignored blatant bias.

Throughout the history of mankind, slavery has existed in one form or another. Since the times of ancient civilizations to modern era subjugations, there have forces who feel strongly of its necessity and purpose, while others have devoted themselves to seeing the ideas and acts of slavery abolished. America is not an exception to the concept of slavery and during the nation’s early history, parties from both sides have been made famous for their beliefs in the continuation or the denouncement of slavery in the United States. To understand the contrasting views of pro-slavery advocates versus abolitionists in antebellum America, a comparison of the individual positions must be made to further understand the goals of each party.

Defending slavery demonstrate the opinions and knowledge that the Southerners held concerning blacks and slavery. Paul Finkelman talks about slave legitimacy in colonial America. He argues that the first defense of slavery became visible after the end of American Revolution; it attempted to justify continuous forced labor with the Declaration of Independence. This essay aims at critically analyzing ideologies and racial theories that Southerners promoted to defend slavery, which included racial, political, legal, economic, and religious ideologies. Most specifically, this essay will discuss the legitimacy of slavery, in the earlier days, and justify this idea by using the religion and

The movement to eliminate slavery in the United States during the antebellum years was difficult and did not go unchallenged as there were many people who were pro-slavery while others were anti-slavery. Before the Civil War there was debate over the issue of slavery. Slaves were considered property, and were property because they were black. Many people in the South were strong advocates of slavery, while people in the North were opposed to it. In the South, slavery was a social and powerful economic institution. During this period in the south Pro-Slavery activists did not empathize with the system and conditions the

One of the ways Southerners defended slavery was through legal means. Although the economic and religious aspects of slavery helped to directly support the moral argument of pro-slavery Southerners, the legal aspects of slavery served as visible victories and defending events in Southern philosophy. In 1831-1832, Virginia legislature debated and eventually defeated various emancipation proposals. This legislation was a turning point in the pro-slavery fight. An example of is is the Dred Scott Decision. An excellent example of the legal side to the Southern arguments and the Southern definition of popular sovereignty. With the Dred Scott Decision, the courts declared that the whole African American race had no legal standing as persons in courts also that all blacks were seen as property, and the Constitution protected property rights of the people, which includes slave owners. Moreover, pro-slavery Southerners