Critique: “Defending Slavery” 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. Contained in the second portion of his book, Finkelman provides …show more content…
The North had a very different opinion of the American way and made it exceedingly clear with the formation of numerous abolition societies, effectively abolishing slavery across the northern region and allowing blacks to live as productive members society, rather than its the property. Even one of the most prominent slave holders of that time was forced to rethink the legitimacy of slavery. “Seeing free black soldiers in action undermined [George] Washington’s racial prejudice and ultimately his support for slavery itself” (Finkelman 18). The productivity, societal and political benefits, and military empowerment made available by freed slaves challenged the South’s sense of racial supremacy, thus they began to establish a defense against the complete abolition of …show more content…
They needed to teach their slaves the ways of Christianity, treat them as a good Christian is supposed to. “If Southern slavery was humane and generous and rooted in Christianity, then it could easily be justified … as an institution beneficial to [both masters and slaves]” (Finkelman 32). As long as they provided their slaves with sufficient food, water and shelter, and evangelical education, their ownership was morally sound. However, though the South biblically substantiated the institution of general slavery, they did not make a sufficient argument to legitimize racial slavery. One recurring and monotonous theory Finkelman attempted to establish was the biblical origin of racially biased slavery. Religious leaders proposed the idea that the “black” race was simply created and condemned to an existence of enslavement. As the story of the Bible goes, the drunkard Noah’s son, Ham, “saw his father’s nakedness” and was later cursed by his father, along with his son, Canaan. Southerners claimed that “part of the ‘curse of Ham’ was that he became black. Hence the Bible taught that slavery was legitimate and that race justified slavery” (Finkelman
When reading about the institution of slavery in the United States, it is easy to focus on life for the slaves on the plantations—the places where the millions of people purchased to serve as slaves in the United States lived, made families, and eventually died. Most of the information we seek is about what daily life was like for these people, and what went “wrong” in our country’s collective psyche that allowed us to normalize the practice of keeping human beings as property, no more or less valuable than the machines in the factories which bolstered industrialized economies at the time. Many of us want to find information that assuages our own personal feelings of discomfort or even guilt over the practice which kept Southern life moving
Slavery’s Constitution by David Waldstreicher can be identified as a very important piece of political analytical literature as it was the first book to recognize slavery 's place at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. Waldstreicher successfully highlights a number of silences which most of the general public are unaware of, for example, the lack of the word “slavery” in the Constitution of the United States of America. Also, the overwhelming presence and lack of explicit mention of the debate of slavery during the construction of the document.
In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...
The most critical issue raised by the North’s victory was the South acceptance of transition of freedom for former slaves. Since most of southern whites did not agree with the idea of freedmen, they created several ways to foreclose the blacks to exercise their rights. The South utilized dirty tactics to preserve the idea of slavery, such as laws as the black codes, lynching and other violent ways promoted by groups known as Ku Klux Klan.
was lacking in some aspects but excelled in most. For example, a good aspect was that Richards questioned the actual people and factors that freed the slaves rather than adopting the overgeneralized view. This is a good question to ask considering the widespread ignorance surrounding the actual process of the 13th amendment. To answer this question, Richards meticulously analyzed evidence from several historical periods to support his argument. In addition, the bulk of his sources were primary sources. In this regard, he successfully supported his argument through his use of credible evidence. Richards does not present any alternative hypotheses because he focuses on strengthening his main argument throughout the book. Richards’s explanations utilized a variety of sources and used logical deduction. As a result, these tended to be believable and reasonable. Richards does not make many moral judgements but is slightly biased against Northern Democrats. He tends to portray them as devious and excessively aggressive against opinions that conflict their own
Imagine that you are an escaped African slave. After years of being a slave, you’ve finally done it, you escaped the terrors that are slavery. You are looking forward to the freedoms that you have heard are promised in the north. However, these “freedoms” are all what they were made out to be. Blacks in the north were, to some extent, free in the years before the Civil War.
...ecause they feared that Slavery would soon be completely abolished. These tensions eventually led to the civil war where the North won and slavery was ended although there were still slave like laws in place after.
North and South The United States of America, the great democratic experiment, was just that. Not since the great Greek culture had a government of, for, and by the people existed. The entire world felt, that on a large scale, democracy would inevitably lead to anarchy; our founding fathers were determined to prove them wrong. But as the political stand off with the British became a secession issue, a great issue split the future nation. Slavery, a southern necessity, both social and economic, threatened the unity of our nation. A nation that would one day be the greatest the world had ever known. During the development of the thirteen colonies, diversity set in early. In the south the temperate climate made the growth of tobacco a suitable and very profitable business. Cultivation of this crop required a lot of land, and therefore settlers lived far apart. Northern Colonies, though, were much more dependent on small farms, with closely knit communities. These differences were the seed of a sectional division that would plague the nation for a century. During the late seventeenth century, this fissure in the ideals of the colonies became apparent. Following the constant political irreverence from Britain, a majority of colonial representatives felt the need for independence. The Declaration of Independence was the document written to do this. It called for an abolition of slavery as well as freedom from British rule. Unfortunately, the South would hear nothing of it. Being strong defenders of states rights, most of the Southern states adhered to their believe in a government less like a supreme authority and more like a dominion of independent states. They would rather stay loyal to their oppressive government than participate in one that shunned their way of life. In order to keep their dreams of independence, they North was forced to make the one cession they did not wish to make. In order to keep a unified nation, the slavery issue was deliberately absent from the Declaration. Some of the Northern delegates were outraged, but none more than John Adams. A renowned proponent of equal rights, he was one of few that saw the irony in establishing a free society without freeing those in bondage. John Adams seems now more like Nostrodamus when he voiced his concern about the slavery issue for future generations. He did not know it, but the couldn’t have been more right.
Up until the late 1800s, slavery was widely considered acceptable in America. This ethical issue was important because African Americans were forcibly held against their will in order to fulfill the hard labor duties that were demanded by their owner. Slaves had no say in whether their lives belong to themselves. There was no sense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. African Americans were not even considered a full person. Although the slaves had families they had no control on whether or not they would stay together. Slaves were sold to different parts of the country in which sometimes they would never see their family members again. Although slavery was accepted, the northern part of America allowed African Americans to be free. This ultimately led to a bloody division between the North and the South. The south led a revolt to go to war against the north, specifically in order to keep their rights to allow slavery. Based on the principles of jus ad bellum, the south was not qualified to go to war in the first place. In order to go to war the state has to be minimally just and the south was not minimally just in doing so. Throughout this paper I will explain the six principles of the jus ad bellum and whether or not the south met any of those principles. I will also explain the south perspective within each of these principles, on why they believed it was right for them to go to war.
The Northern states are against slavery because they find it morally incorrect to own another human being. Well, my friends from the North, first off you have no right to argue something that our founding fathers practiced and secondly, black slaves are inferior to our white Anglo-Saxon race. One thing is for sure, they should not be free to walk around the United States and act as an equal to the white race. If the slaves were free, they would be far outstripped or outwitted in the chase of free competition. Their fate would certainly become extermination. The Negro's providence of habits and moneymaking capacity is incomparable to that of the whites. Had they remained in Africa, they would become idolatrous, savage and cannibal, or be eaten by other savages and cannibals (Fitzhugh, 247). They should thank us for relieving them from the far more cruel slavery in Africa. Although they are inferio...
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).
Despite each individual having different circumstances in which they experienced regarding the institution of slavery, both were inspired to take part in the abolitionist movement due to the injustices they witnessed. The result is two very compelling and diverse works that attack the institution of slavery and argue against the reasons the pro-slavery individuals use to justify the slavery
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...
Slave-owners forced a perverse form of Christianity, one that condoned slavery, upon slaves. According to this false Christianity the enslavement of “black Africans is justified because they are the descendants of Ham, one of Noah's sons; in one Biblical story, Noah cursed Ham's descendants to be slaves” (Tolson 272). Slavery was further validated by the numerous examples of it within the bible. It was reasoned that these examples were confirmation that God condoned slavery. Douglass’s master...
Knowles, H. J. (2007). The Constitution and Slavery: A Special Relationship. Slavery & Abolition, 28(3), 309-328. doi:10.1080/01440390701685514