Slaves in the South Essays

Phillips writes that the defining characteristic of a ‘Southerner’ is a feeling of white racial solidarity which casts all other social considerations in the shade; it is the “cardinal test of a Southerner.” When Phillips touches upon the subject of non-slaveholding whites, he emphasizes their zeal for the primacy of white civilization as an end unto itself. He relates two contemporary accounts of non-slaveholders, one a tinner and the other an overseer, to demonstrate this fervor but pointedly devalues their economic attachments to slavery, writing, “Both of them, and a million of their non-slaveholding like, had a still stronger social prompting: the white men’s ways must prevail; the Negroes must be kept innocuous.” Phillips rejects out of hand the sway of overt pecuniary motives against the weight of racial ones and this rejection is so absolute in part because “it is otherwise impossible to account

In the United States there was a heated debate about the morality of slavery. Supporters of slavery in the 18th century used legal, economic, and religious arguments to defend slavery. They were able to do so effectively because all three of these reasons provide ample support of the peculiar institution that was so vital to the South.

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).

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.

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 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.

“Planter not only held the majority of slaves, but they controlled the most fertile land, enjoyed the highest incomes, and dominated the state and local offices and the leadership of both political parties” (Foner 411). There were fewer than forty-thousand families that possessed about twenty or more slaves that qualified them as planters. There were also fewer than two-thousand families owned about a hundred slaves or more. The ownership of slaves provided the route to wealth, status, and influence. Slavery was the profit-making system, and slave-owners kept a close watch on world priced for their products to invested in enterprises such as railroads and canals.

The South has been criticized for practicing the archaic ways of slavery deeming it: barbaric, inhumane, and out of touch with the changes of the world. The argument continues through George Fitzhugh’s Southern Thought, “Labor pays all taxes, but labor in a slave society is property, and men will take care of their property. In free society, labor is not property, and there is nothing to shield the laborer from the grinding weight of taxation – all of which he pays, because he produces everything valuable.” (Fitzhugh Southern Thought pg. 823) Furthermore, the identity the South identifies itself as a place of self-worth and pride in what your property can produce while enjoying the fruits of their labors. A land where taxes cannot take away the riches and treasures that are produced in their fruitful land.

The paper The Political Legacy of American Slavery shows that current political attitudes in counties across the American South have roots that can be traced back to the origins of slavery in 1860. The focus is on whites who are currently living in counties in the American South that had high numbers of slaves in 1860 are more likely to identify as a republican, oppose policy that has to do with blacks, and visibly show racial resentment towards blacks. The hypothesis of this paper is “today’s Black Belt is more politically conservative than other parts of the south in part because of its history of chattel slavery” (Acharya, Blackwell, & Sen, 2016, p. 622).

Slavery is a contradictory subject in American history because “one hears…of the staid and gentle patriarchy, the wide and sleepy plantations with lord and retainers, ease and happiness; [while] on the other hand on hears of barbarous cruelty and unbridles power and wide oppression of men” (Dubois 2). Dubois’s The Negro in the United States is an autoethnographic text which is a representation “that the so-defined others

The decline of slavery in the upper South in the early 19th century can be identified as a profound change which would contribute to the eventual division of the nation. After 1830, the pattern of regional slavery in the South experienced great variations, such that the upper South gradually declined ties with slavery while the lower South distinctively became identified with it. This profound change was brought on by a shift in utilizing free labor rather than slavery to drive economic production in the upper South (Goldfield et. al, p. 285). The climate and geography in states of the upper South overtime proved less

One of the most, if not the most, controversial and heated debates following the United States independence was regarding the institution of slavery. In the introduction to his book Half Slave and Half Free, Bruce Levine quotes Carl Schurzs’ observation as the “slave question not being a mere occasional quarrel between two sections of the country divided by a geographic line, but a great struggle between two antagonistic systems of social organization (p.15)”. The Nouthern states that allowed slavery benefited from the agricultural labor that those slaves provided. The Northern states that prohibited slavery did so for moral and pragmatic reasons; they felt it was morally wrong to deny another human any form of rights, and did not like the economic advantage it gave to the Southern states. With the use of slavery largely concentrated in the South, the movement against it came from the North and was led by abolitionists; those who were committed to bringing an end to the practice. In this course we have defined “Practice” as the conduct of policy, such as opinion, election, parties and law-making (Lecture). We define Policy as the goals of politics, those being sovereignty, defense, and a collective well-being (Lecture). The following analytical essay will examine antislavery sentiment and practices in the Northern states and the reaction of Southern states. Additionally how the pressures from both sides influenced the Policy of the United States following independence then

The goal of the civil war was never originally to free slaves but slaves became a large part of the war. African American slaves overcame many challenges to finally receive their freedom. Many African Americans endured the chance to fight for the union and that immensely increased the man power of the union.

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.

“SLAVERY was abolished 150 years ago, right? While it is true that slavery is illegal almost everywhere on earth, the fact is there are more slaves today than there ever were…” Despite the grim reality described in this quote, I believe Robert Alan successfully undermines a common misconception held by Americans, both young and old. Although we are brought up thinking that Abraham Lincoln with his Emancipation Proclamation along with the Civil War Amendments brought an end to the enemy known as slavery, in today’s society, however, that is sadly not the case. The harsh reality is that this problem never truly