Argumentative Summary: Pro Slavery Vs. Abolitionist?

711 Words2 Pages

Pro Slavery vs. Abolition The United States will forever have a bad rep for what happened to those who were once enslaved in this country. The two sides of this controversy, being Pro Slavery and the Abolitionists, set one of the main splits in this country that was supposedly a place for anyone to have “freedom”. What started this affair was the overall reality that African Americans were represented as unusually different, there were many reasons for the white man to justify slavery, and what became the practice of being racial prejudice. The ideas behind what the Pro Slavery activists believed versus the Abolitionists, each to their own, have an attitude towards what they thought was right and wrong for the well being of their country, but …show more content…

People believed that the black man was unintellectual and was incapable of thought just because the lack of communication there was between a slave and a slave-owner. George Fitzhugh advocates slavery in his “Universal Law of Slavery” trying to sway the govern that African Americans were more freed were slaves for the white man, rather than being back in Africa where some of their practiced rituals seemed more cruel than what any man could do to a slave like “idolatry and cannibalism” (Fitzhugh). Even though the activists against slavery knew that was …show more content…

He stood up to abolish slavery by telling the president and others the story of how America earned her freedom. He mentions how the Americans were, “ treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn. Yet they persevered. They were not the men to look back”(Douglass). The Americans wanted change just like the African Americans wanted fairness as well. Without this rebellion, the slaves could not get to be emancipated and stop being treated like animals. Civil societies for the white man versus the black man were opposites, which was surprising since the religious values of the common white man was Christianity. They did not follow the law of the Lord; do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Being a slave meant doing whatever, whenever the master said so or else “whipping the devil out of them” (Cartwright) was put into effect. From a proponent’s perspective, if the slave owner “treated [them] kindly, well fed and clothed, with little fuel”(Cartwright) then they were good slave owners and they would not try to run away. Overall, this notion developed into now what we call being racial prejudice. Setting someone apart for the color of his or her skin is bigotry. The slave owners did not take an attempt to consider the damage they were doing to the African Americans of this time, with the physical,

In this essay, the author

  • Argues that pro slavery and the abolitionists set one of the main splits in this country that was supposed to be a place for anyone to have "freedom".
  • Analyzes how george fitzhugh advocates slavery in his "universal law of slavery" trying to sway the govern that african americans were more freed were slaves for the white man.
Show More
Open Document