The most common argument of pro-slavery radical "fire eaters" was
A. That the US should declare war on Britain for allowing runaway slaves haven in Canada
B. Those slaves are property and thus the "peculiar institution" is protected by the Constitution
C. That the South favored non-importation bans on slavery into the Mexican Cession
D. That Congress should declare war on Britain for trying to cause insurrections in Texas
E. That slavery was morally justified in the Bible and by the actions of the founding fathers
I believe the answer is B. Is this correct? I was going between B and E. Thanks for your help!
B looks best to me. However, be sure to check your text to see if its author disagrees with me.
Thank you for your help! It was much appreciated :)
You are very welcome.
Yes, you are correct. The most common argument of pro-slavery radical "fire eaters" was that slaves were property and thus the "peculiar institution" was protected by the Constitution. This argument is represented by option B.
To arrive at this answer, you can analyze the given options and eliminate the ones that are not commonly associated with the pro-slavery argument. Options A, C, and D are not widely recognized as common arguments of pro-slavery proponents. Option E, which suggests that slavery was morally justified in the Bible and by the actions of the founding fathers, is often associated with defenders of slavery but may not necessarily reflect the primary argument made by the radical "fire eaters." Therefore, option B, which emphasizes the legal protection of slavery as property by the Constitution, is the most plausible answer.