How did abolitionists like Channing justify taking no immediate action against slavery
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellery_Channing
Abolitionists like Channing, who advocated for the gradual emancipation of slaves and taking no immediate action against slavery, justified their stance in several ways.
First, they believed that sudden and immediate emancipation could lead to social and economic chaos. They argued that the economic system of the time heavily relied on slave labor, and a sudden end to slavery would disrupt the stability of the nation. Abolitionists like Channing were concerned about the potential negative consequences, such as widespread unemployment, economic collapse in slaveholding states, and potential violence from slaveholders unwilling to give up their property overnight.
Second, they believed that a gradual approach would allow time for slaveholders to voluntarily emancipate their slaves, either through economic incentives or moral persuasion. They hoped that by appealing to the conscience of slaveholders, they could convince them to abandon the institution of slavery on their own terms. They believed that this approach would lead to a more peaceful transition and avoid potentially violent confrontations.
Third, some abolitionists, including Channing, held paternalistic views toward African Americans, considering them intellectually and morally inferior to white people. They believed that African Americans needed time to acquire the necessary skills and education to integrate successfully into society as free individuals. They saw gradual emancipation as a way to prepare and educate former slaves for their eventual freedom, ensuring a smoother transition.
It is important to note that while some abolitionists supported a gradual approach, there were others who advocated for immediate and total abolition of slavery. The reasons and justifications for each approach varied among different individuals and groups within the abolitionist movement.