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.
Legally speaking, the constitution offered numerous arguments for slavery and clearly protected the protected the people’s rights to own slaves. The 3/5 clause clearly states that slaves are subordinate being who belong enslaved. This compromise also exposes the fact that slaves were thought of as property. Because the slaves are the property of whitest they are protected by the V amendment which states
…show more content…
Since nowhere was the government given the power to get rid of slavery, that power belonged to the state, and the people. In these ways the constitution provided those in favor of slavery with a strong argument.
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.
Supporters of slavery often pointed to the bible as an advocate for slavery. Nowhere did Jesus say that slavery was inhumane, cruel, or otherwise immoral. In fact the bible even mentions that it is a slave’s duty to serve their master. Those in favor of slavery interpreted this as favoring their cause. For those who were religious, Christianity gave strong reasoning for why
In 1787 representatives from twelve of the thirteen states met in Pennsylvania for a constitutional convention. Delegates voiced great concern over the protection of individual liberties and personal property. For southern delegates one of the most important liberties was the right to own slaves. While they wanted a federal government that would protect their rights, they did not want a governing body that would emancipate their slaves. There was a notation that the pursuit of happiness was tied to property. As strongly as people might adhere to the notion of liberty and freedom, they adhere just as strongly to the notion of property.
There was no significant desire among most delegates to abolish slavery during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. In addition, the focus of the convention was on forming a more perfect union, not dealing with the issue
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.
While Slavery was against humanity and Abolitionists who believed in abolition of the practice of slavery, the South had their own reasons why slavery was needed in America and how basically they supported pro slavery. For instance, some arguments for slavery were, “Sudden end to the slave economy would have had a profound and killing economic impact in the South where reliance on slave labor was the foundation of their economy. If all
The South could legally practice slavery. Many people called this a failure in the constitution. In the constitution, there were many components that protected Slave owners because slaves were considered property instead of people. These protections for slave owners were written by the founding fathers who owned slaves themselves allowing the practice to stay in America. Other parts of Constitution stated that individual states can nullify federal laws that they did not choose to follow. This meant that slave states could choose to practice slavery, with no federal repercussions. The constitution also allowed states that willingly joined the nation to also secede. All these failures of the constitution allowed the South to keep slavery as well as secede from the union, thus leading to the civil war. However, without slavery, the flaws in the constitution would not have been as significant, because slavery was the main issue people were concerned about. For the failure of the constitution to be a cause of the civil war also depended on the fact that slavery
In history, slavery has been the cause of many major political battles. Many of these have been between the North and the South. Most people in the North do not support slavery because it is not needed in their economy because they do not need to grow cash crops or own a plantation. Most people in the South do support slavery because their economy depends on it and they consider it their way of life and do not want to change that. Workers in the North work long hours with low pay but are better off then the “workers” in the South who work long hours with no pay.
Pro-slavery and anti-slavery were a group of advocates who both had a different perspective about slaves. The group of people that believed in slavery were mainly from the South and they were usually businessmen, traders, farmers, and slave traders. They argued that slavery was right; slavery caused a growth in the nation’s economy, it was accepted in the bible, and the slaves were better taken care of in the hands of a master. On the other hand, the Northerners thought otherwise. On their behalf, they argued that the slaves were treated poorly by their masters, it was a sin to be involved in slavery, and the Africans were unhappy because they were forced to move from their homeland. The pro-slavery authors of the articles gave support to their argument by saying that the law was not leading the people the right way to grow a nation or the economy. The testimonies of the immigrants and slave owner helped support the pro-slavery authors’ arguments.
The United States legal system experienced immense change caused by the Civil War. The main causes of the war included the obvious issue of slavery, but also that off states rights and brought to question exactly how much power the federal government had. Despite the obvious moral reasons for removing slavery, the process to do so faced issues in regards to legality. The legality of slavery was discussed throughout various issues including property, state, and of course human rights. The institution of slavery violated the due process rights to life and liberty of the enslaved, however the removal of the institution of slavery violated the due process rights pertaining to the property of the slave owners. The issue regarding the strength of
"The American constitution recognized slavery as a local constitution within the legal rights of the individual states. But in the North slavery was not adaptable to the local economy, and to many, it contradicted the vision of the founding fathers for a nation in which all men are to be free. The South considered slavery as a necessary institution for the plantation economy. It was linked to the local culture and society. As the United states expanded, the North worried that the South would introduce slavery into the new territories. Slavery had become both a moral issue and a question of political power." (Kral p61)
The economic benefits of slavery made it justifiable in the United States as the abolition of the institution could have caused financial ruin. Although slavery denied African Americans unalienable human rights, it was promoted in the South for economic reasons. Therefore, the gap between the ideal and painful realities of American life was widened by the document.
This appeased the non-slave states because the slaves weren't fully counted and satisfied slave states because they got more representation for having slaves. The constitution effectively rectified the shortcoming of the articles by creating a solution that was favorable to both slave and non-slave
Once the Convention heard all the arguments and voted on all the clauses contained about slavery, the delegates concluded that slavery should still be legal. There are a few reasons why they decided this. The first major reason was that the southern economy depended on slavery to operate their plantations. If slavery were abolished, then they would lose their entire work force and would be forced to find white people to work for them instead. This is a major problem, however, since poor white people felt that they were a step up from the African slaves. They didn't want to be doing a job that was normally done by the blacks (It's important to realize that most southern people at that time felt that blacks were an inferior race, and should be treated as such). Many supporters of slavery, such as Charles Pinckney even argued that "In all ages, one-half of mankind
When Northerners began to use the Bible against slavery, southerners used this same argument to support it. Slavery was a practice that had been around for centuries. The Romans, the Greeks, and the English had all owned slaves. (“The Southern Argument for Slavery.” n.d.). The southerners stated that Abraham and Isaac, noted in the Bible, owned slaves. (“The Southern Argument for Slavery.” n.d.). It is easy to see why the southerners would use the Bible as their defense, since it is known that multiple men owned slaves in the time that Jesus lived on the Earth. The Ten Commandments states that “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor 's house, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." (“The Southern Argument for Slavery.” n.d.). The Bible also possesses many statements on slavery, such as in Ephesians when it says “Servants, be obedient to them that are [your] masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” (King James Bible, Ephesians 6:5). In comparison, Colossians also states “masters, give
The Pro-Slavery argument was greatly molded by Biblical references. Many slave owners were made secure in their beliefs about slavery
Slavery was a justified institution in America during most of the 19th century with those supporting it arguing it was a positive good and an economic stabilizer. Southern whites were dependent on slave labor for their economy and were willing to fight, by any means necessary, in order to keep the right to own slaves. Proslavery whites launched a defensive against slavery, which included referring to the Constitution as fair legal justification for their practices, stating the Bible supported it as did the philosophy of the highly respected Aristotle. Southern whites used moral and biblical rationalization through religion, the Constitution and economic disaster to support their opinion of slavery being a justified institution.