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” …show more content…
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 …show more content…
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
The use of labor came in two forms; indenture servitude and Slavery used on plantations in the south particularly in Virginia. The southern colonies such as Virginia were based on a plantation economy due to factors such as fertile soil and arable land that can be used to grow important crops, the plantations in the south demanded rigorous amounts of labor and required large amounts of time, the plantation owners had to employ laborers in order to grow crops and sell them to make a profit. Labor had become needed on the plantation system and in order to extract cheap labor slaves were brought to the south in order to work on the plantations. The shift from indentured servitude to slavery was an important time as well as the factors that contributed to that shift, this shift affected the future generations of African American descent. The history of colonial settlements involved altercations and many compromises, such as Bacons Rebellion, and slavery one of the most debated topics in the history of the United States of America. The different problems that occurred in the past has molded into what is the United States of America, the reflection in the past provides the vast amount of effort made by the settlers to make a place that was worth living on and worth exploring.
The foundation of this paper will highlight the following questions: How might southern apologists for slavery have used the northern “wage slave” discussed in the last chapter to justify slavery? To what extent do you agree with this argument? How did slaves use religious belief and kinship to temper their plight? Did this strategy play into the hands of slaveholders? How were non-slaveholding whites and “free people of color” affected by the institution of slavery?
"Slavery is founded on the selfishness of man's nature--opposition to it on his love of justice. These principles are in eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow." (Abraham Lincoln)[1]
Following the success of Christopher Columbus’ voyage to the Americas in the early16th century, the Spaniards, French and Europeans alike made it their number one priority to sail the open seas of the Atlantic with hopes of catching a glimpse of the new territory. Once there, they immediately fell in love the land, the Americas would be the one place in the world where a poor man would be able to come and create a wealthy living for himself despite his upbringing. Its rich grounds were perfect for farming popular crops such as tobacco, sugarcane, and cotton. However, there was only one problem; it would require an abundant amount of manpower to work these vast lands but the funding for these farming projects was very scarce in fact it was just about nonexistent. In order to combat this issue commoners back in Europe developed a system of trade, the Triangle Trade, a trade route that began in Europe and ended in the Americas. Ships leaving Europe first stopped in West Africa where they traded weapons, metal, liquor, and cloth in exchange for captives that were imprisoned as a result of war. The ships then traveled to America, where the slaves themselves were exchanged for goods such as, sugar, rum and salt. The ships returned home loaded with products popular with the European people, and ready to begin their journey again.
Slavery was a staple of Southern economy and lifestyle which greatly increased after the 1820s. Slaveholders came under attack when abolitionist ideas gripped the North and threatened the Southern way of life. This resulted in Southerners trying to justify slavery, not only to the North, but to themselves. One planter and politician from South Carolina, James Henry Hammond, wrote a Proslavery Argument in 1845 to refute the accusations the abolitionists were making towards the South and the institution of slavery. He defended slave-owners when he wrote his argument and said that slaveholders were responsible to God and the law. He also said that these owners could not refuse to provide just care for their slaves or be “tyrannical or cruel.”
"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)
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.
“The right to have a slave implies the right in some one to make a slave; that right must be equal and mutual, and this would resolve society into a state of perpetual war.” Senator William Steward, an anti-slavery supporter, issued this claim in his “There is a Higher Law than the Constitution” speech. Steward, like all abolitionist, viewed all of man as equals. This equality came from the “higher law” that is the Bible. Since all men were created by God then all men were equals in God’s eyes. Abolitionist believed that whites had no more right to make a slave out of a African American than the African American had to make a slave out of a white man.
For hundreds of years, slavery has been practiced around the world. At this time, abolitionist Americans have no right to deny this tradition. Our founding fathers, in fact, had slaves of their own. One must concur that slavery is not morally wrong but rather needed for the growth of America. The abolitionists of the North have weak arguments that can be overruled by all the advantages of slavery. These advantages include white supremacy and the advantages of living as a slave, the kingdom of cotton, and the reality of the United States' Constitution and its Amendments. The South will not lose slavery over a bunch of abolitionist fools view's of the wrongs of slavery, but will instead remain in charge of their black slaves and keep them working the fields of cotton.
So, as I have stated many times before, slavery is a positive good and not a necessary evil, like so many say it is. All of the benefits to our country due to the slave institutions should be proof enough of that. Also, no wealthy and civilized society has yet existed that did not live on the labor of the other.
Throughout this course we learned about slavery and it's effects on our country and on African Americans. Slavery and racism is prevalent throughout the Americas before during and after Thomas Jefferson's presidency. Some people say that Jefferson did not really help stop any of the slavery in the United States. I feel very differently and I will explain why throughout this essay. Throughout this essay I will be explaining how views of race were changed in the United States after the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and how the events of the Jeffersonian Era set the stage for race relations for the nineteenth century.
A Leon Higginbotham Jr.’s argument in The Ancestry of Inferiority (1619-1662), is that the people of Virginia had already began to think of black people, be it they were free or indentured servants, as inferior to themselves before slavery was institutionalized. The Colonist’s had already begun to strategize legalities in regards on how black people were to be disciplined. Higginbotham has two reasons why Africans were not afforded the same liberties as that of the white indentured servants in Virginia. The first reason he states is that the majority of white indentured servants came to Virginia on their own free will. Once they had completed their five or seven-year contract with their master, they were free to buy land and begin working for themselves. Unlike the African’s that he claims were brought here against their will or for desperation. The second reasoning is that the English thought that the black represented evil or danger and because African’s skin coloring was black, they must be evil. Higginbotham offers a couple of examples representing just how the English prior to the actual term of slavery being used, were already creating a racial difference in the judicial system. From court cases that he has reviewed, he states one must find what the case is not saying verses what it is. When the English identified people with names the only time skin color was not used in context is when that person was a white person. Another case he made use of is a good example of black inferiority to white superiority in the early 17th century is in the case In Re Graweere, 1641. The court made certain that a particular African father had no value in society when attempting to get his child back. However, because his son was...
For Edmund S. Morgan American slavery and American freedom go together hand in hand. Morgan argues that many historians seem to ignore writing about the early development of American freedom simply because it was shaped by the rise of slavery. It seems ironic that while one group of people is trying to break the mold and become liberated, that same group is making others confined and shattering their respectability. The aspects of liberty, race, and slavery are closely intertwined in the essay, 'Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox.'
Slavery was the main resource used in the Chesapeake tobacco plantations. The conditions in the Chesapeake region were difficult, which lead to malnutrition, disease, and even death. Slaves were a cheap and an abundant resource, which could be easily replaced at any time. The Chesapeake region’s tobacco industries grew and flourished on the intolerable and inhumane acts of slavery.
Slavery has been a part of human practices for centuries and dates back to the world’s ancient civilizations. In order for us to recognize modern day slavery we must take a look and understand slavery in the American south before the 1860’s, also known as antebellum slavery. Bouvier’s Law Dictionary defines a slave as, “a man who is by law deprived of his liberty for life, and becomes the property of another” (B.J.R, pg. 479). In the period of antebellum slavery, African Americans were enslaved on small farms, large plantations, in cities and towns, homes, out on fields, industries and transportation. By law, slaves were the perso...