Rhetorical Analysis Of Slavery In The South Vs. South

724 Words3 Pages
Extra credit
The purpose of this speech is to inform how both sides going up against each other, which is the North versus South, and that they think differently about slavery. It shows in the speech that both sides kept arguing if they should keep the slaves or not, and that it was the people in the South’s birthright to own slaves. Since owning a slave was the South’s birthright, they did not want to give up their slaves. Both sides are not getting along because they will not agree with slavery. I thought it was about not compromising the social order of the South. When changes in compromising the people wanted immediate gratification. Calhoun responds to the antislavery petitions by abolitionist group. Calhoun thought south should stop apologizing
…show more content…
"In opposition to this view is urged that Congress is bound by the constitution to receive petitions in every case and on every subject, whether within its constitutional competency or not. So this quote is saying Congress is bound by the bill of rights and will follow the rules of the constitution.
Calhoun’s five facts that make slavery a “positive good” are virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and high qualities, which adorn nature. He is saying that this is what makes slavery positive. They treat their slaves well because it is their property and want them to work for them. Calhoun made a point where the North treats the laborers worse than the South treated their slaves. Many in the South tried to enrich their slaves by giving them religion and education. The South liked their slaves and many tried to treat them the best they

More about Rhetorical Analysis Of Slavery In The South Vs. South

Open Document