Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effect of slavery in society
Effect of slavery in society
Effect of slavery in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effect of slavery in society
Southern Pro-Slavery Rhetoric By 1860, the slave states had approximately four million slaves making up approximately one-third of the South's population. However, opposition to slavery began as early as the 1700's by religious leaders and philosophers in North America and Europe who condemned the practice, arguing that slavery was contrary to God's teachings and violated basic human rights. During the Revolutionary War, many Americans came to feel that slavery in the United States was wrong because they believed that protection of human rights was one of the founding tenets of the United States, and slaves were not accorded rights. Slavery was likely opposed more rapidly in the North in part because fewer people in the North owned slaves. Northern abolitionists began organized efforts to end the practice of slavery in the 1800's. But much of the American South, believed that slavery was vital to the continuation of its livelihood and lifestyle and therefore defended the institution of slavery. As the abolition movement picked up, southerners became organized in their support of slavery in what became known as the proslavery movement. Some southerners involved in the movement maintained the position that slavery was like "the law of nature" which allowed the strong to rule the weak. Thus is was appropriate for whites to own blacks as slaves because they believed whites were the dominant race. Some supporters of slavery believed that the Bible clearly condoned the practice of slavery. Still others argue that southern slaves were provided with lifelong homes and better living conditions than they would have experienced living in Africa. By 1860, almost all southerners thought slavery should continue. The Southern philosophers were, in some measure, great theorists. Their ability to defend the institution of slavery as a good for society can be considered through three justifications: socio-political, economic/socio-economic, and religious. Of all the areas with which the southerners contended, the socio-political arena was probably their strongest. It is in this area that they had history and law to support their assertions. With the recent exception of the British, the slave trade had been an integral part of the economies of many nations and the slaves were the labor by which many nations and empires attained greatness. Souther... ... middle of paper ... ...e the institution of slavery itself was not evil, there were evils associated with the practice. As such, the clergy often fell into disfavor with the extremists of the proslavery movement. Many Southerners supported, in some measure, the position of the clergy to some extent. Yet, they did not wish to abandon their system suddenly and without an adequate replacement. They were also concerned that free labor promoted infidelity, secularism, liberal theology, perversities, egotism and personal license to the detriment of God-ordained authority and the Christian social order. In studying the Southern defense of slavery, it appears that southerners were defending a way of life. Many believed that the institution of slavery was the lesser of two evils in terms of providing benefits for workers, others believed that it was at the very foundation of a free society to own slaves and still others saw it merely as an expedient means to an economic end. Although one may acknowledge that the South had understandable political, social and religious reasons for supporting the institution of slavery, the fundamental moral obligation to treat all humans as equals supercedes them all.
Paul Finkelman takes on the role of devil’s advocate in his book “Defending Slavery”. Within the first section of the book, Finkelman explains the background of slavery both in America and around the world, past, post-American Revolution, and around the world. He then goes on to explain the revelations which prompted the South to develop a course of action to defend slavery. In detail and chronological order, he describes the various means of defense used by those in favor of slavery in America. Their justifications for slavery and resistance against its abolishment were rooted in religion, politics, economics and other aspects that drive society.
Mr. Brown in his book utters the following quote, which he feels explains why the white Southern man defended slavery and why he fought so hard to keep it instilled. “The inhabitant of the Old South was not inspired to shed his own slaves. Ever since man first picked up a stone to fling at an enemy, he has justified his thirst for revenge and for popular approval on the grounds of honor…White Southerners were certain their cause was justified by that prehistoric code.” In summary this quote states that the white Southern planter did not just wake up and defend hid slaves but it was predestined that man defend his property and take revenge against his enemies. The slaves were their property and the Northerners the ones to exact their revenge upon for trying to take their slaves.
South Carolina was one of the only states in which the black slaves and abolitionists outnumbered their oppressors. Denmark Vesey’s slave revolt consisted of over nine-thousand armed slaves, free blacks, and abolitionists, that would have absolutely devastated society in South Carolina for slave owners, and could have quite possibly been a major step towards the abolishment of slavery in the United states. Robertson succeeded in describing the harsh conditions of slaves in pre-civil war Charleston, South Carolina. This book also helped me to understand the distinctions between the different groups. These groups including the black slaves, free blacks, extreme abolitionists, and the pro-slavery communities.
Imagine a historian, author of an award-winning dissertation and several books. He is an experienced lecturer and respected scholar; he is at the forefront of his field. His research methodology sets the bar for other academicians. He is so highly esteemed, in fact, that an article he has prepared is to be presented to and discussed by the United States’ oldest and largest society of professional historians. These are precisely the circumstances in which Ulrich B. Phillips wrote his 1928 essay, “The Central Theme of Southern History.” In this treatise he set forth a thesis which on its face is not revolutionary: that the cause behind which the South stood unified was not slavery, as such, but white supremacy. Over the course of fourteen elegantly written pages, Phillips advances his thesis with evidence from a variety of primary sources gleaned from his years of research. All of his reasoning and experience add weight to his distillation of Southern history into this one fairly simple idea, an idea so deceptively simple that it invites further study.
2- Carl Schurz wrote reports called Reports on the Condition of the South, in 1865 in which he investigated the sentiments of leaders and ordinary people, whites and blacks, from the defeated South. He describes that was not safe to wear the federal uniform on the streets and soldiers of the Union were considered intruders, Republicans were considered enemies. But, even worse was the situation of freedmen in which were expected to behave as slaves for white Southerners. Schurz heard the same phrase, “You cannot make the negro work, without physical compulsion,” (Schurz) from so many different people that he concluded that this sentiment was rooted among the southern people. He related this case of a former slaveholder that suggested blacks were unfitted for freedom, “I heard a Georgia planter argue most seriously that one of his negroes had shown himself certainly unfit for freedom because he impudently refused to submit to a whipping.”
A solution to limit slavery debates led to the creation of a doctrine known as Popular Sovereignty. “A territory could decide by vote whether or not to permit slavery within its boundaries.” Therefore, this doctrine gave the territory right to be pro-slavery or anti-slavery. Although the doctrine ruled in favor of the majority of the population of a territory, not one hundred percent of the territory’s population was always in compliance. It is commonly discussed that slavery was something that greatly segregated the north from the south. With the south being pro-slavery, many were aware that the south needed slavery for particular services or else they would not feel so strongly to preserve slavery. “Slavery was basically a system to control labor, being a great investment for slave-owners to profit from.” Slaves were necessary for cotton production and other farm duties. “Cotton was king in the Old South: its primary export and the major source of southern wealth.” Furthermore, the south
Dr. Richard Fuller, a southerner from Beaufort, South Carolina, writes the second side of the argument. In Fuller’s mind slaves are acceptable because it has become a way of life in the South. Large Southern plantations need slaves to help harvest and plant the crops; because of this importance the slave trade becomes a big part of Southern economy during the 1800s. Fuller also points out in his opening letter to Wayland that slavery was not invented by the Southern states, but was actually an ideal brought over from England. Fuller also goes on to explain the racism that occurs within the Southern States. “It would suddenly give them a liberty for which they are wholly unprepared, and which would be only a license for indolence and crime”
From 1830 to 1860 the views of northern and southern Americans regarding the slave trade drastically differed. The South, which supported the institution of slavery, believed that the practice was a vital part of the national economy. Meanwhile, the North, which contained a majority of the abolitionists and free soilers, thought that slavery was an unnecessary evil in America. This difference in views caused attitudes towards the institution of slavery to differ by region in the United States of America from 1830 to
When even the highly-supported secession documents clearly outline how important slavery was to the southern states, it is hard to deny its fault in the war. The argument that the Confederacy was fighting for states’ rights is the most-often suggested alternative, however all one needs to do is dig deeper and calculate what these
Constitutionally the North favored a loose interpretation of the United States Constitution, and they wanted to grant the federal government increased powers. The South wanted to reserve all undefined powers to the individual states themselves. The South relied upon slave labor for their economic well being, and the economy of the North was not reliant on such labor or in need of this type of service. This main issue overshadowed all others. Southerners compared slavery to the wage-slave system of the North, and believed their slaves received better care than the northern factory workers received from their employers. Many Southern preachers proclaimed that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible. Southern leaders had constantly tried to seek new areas into which slavery might be extended (Oates 349).
"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)
This prompted the development of “free soil,” in which Northerners opposed the expansion of slavery. Southerners viewed free soil as a threatening policy primarily because of the off balance that new free states that were being admitted to the US would cause between the more unequal slave states’ representation in Congress. Southerners believed that if outnumbered to free states in Congress, laws would be passed to abolish slavery in the South, thus causing economic downfall in the
The abolition of slavery started in 1777. In the North the abolition of slavery was the first to start. But, in the South it started during the 1800’s. The Northern states gave blacks some freedom, unlike the Southern states. The national population was 31,000,000 and four and one-half, were African American. Free african males had some limits with their freedom. There were many political, social, or economic restrictions placed on the freedom of free blacks in the North, but the three most important are, Political and Judicial Rights, Social Freedom, and Economic.
The turmoil between the North and South about slavery brought many issues to light. People from their respective regions would argue whether it was a moral institution and that no matter what, a decision on the topic had to be made that would bring the country to an agreement once and for all. This paper discusses the irrepressible conflict William H. Seward mentions, several politician’s different views on why they could or could not co-exist, and also discusses the possible war as a result.
The American Revolution was a “light at the end of the tunnel” for slaves, or at least some. African Americans played a huge part in the war for both sides. Lord Dunmore, a governor of Virginia, promised freedom to any slave that enlisted into the British army. Colonists’ previously denied enlistment to African American’s because of the response of the South, but hesitantly changed their minds in fear of slaves rebelling against them. The north had become to despise slavery and wanted it gone. On the contrary, the booming cash crops of the south were making huge profits for landowners, making slavery widely popular. After the war, slaves began to petition the government for their freedom using the ideas of the Declaration of Independence,” including the idea of natural rights and the notion that government rested on the consent of the governed.” (Keene 122). The north began to fr...