Dr. Richard Fuller Sparknotes

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”

Fuller’s interpretation of the Bible is strictly used within a historical usage to back up his beliefs. Fuller writes, “…that slavery was not known in Abraham’s day except among the heathen; that the patriarch was a prince, and the persons bought with his money were subjects, whom he purchased to improve their condition” (168). Fuller in this passage is trying to convey to both the audience and to his Northern counterpart, that slavery is not in fact a bad thing. Fuller explains that in the time of Abraham, the slaves were bought to improve their own personal condition. The act of buying slaves was actually helping mankind in the long run, rather it be agricultural or architectural needs for the society. Later on in the same paragraph, Fuller writes, “…If Southern masters only call themselves princes, and their slaves subjects…” (168). From this passage, Fuller is discussing that slavery is only bad in name. If Southern plantation owners were to change the name of slavery and refer to the concept as rulers over subjects, then nobody would have a problem with the idea. Southern plantation owners, just as Kings in previous time periods believe that they are actually helping the slaves or subjects improve their conditions by taking them away from the local cultural, and bring them to a more modern cultural which will help influence

Fuller states, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (171). Fuller is using this argument to suggest that the Old Testament theological way of thinking about slavery is acceptable. The reason stated above is that all of God’s word is from God; the use of slaves in the Old Testament is therefore able to be used modern day Southern plantation holders. Fuller further along within his letter describes how the slaves of the Old Testament were more or less indigent servants, who would work seven years for a particular person and then they would be set free and even possibly be given a wife. This is where one can argue that Fuller loses his argument for Old Testament slavery, because he does not argue for the correct type of slavery. Indigent servants actually have a shot of becoming free one day, after there set contractual time period is up. Slaves on a Southern plantation have no hope of ever being set free and realize that they will more than likely live on the plantation till death. One can see that Fuller’s way of thinking with the Old Testament might have fallen through with his argument of servants as