Slavery in the nineteen century was both embraced and abhorred by Americans.analyze how supporters of Slavery in the nineteenth century used political,moral,and economic arguments to defend the peculiar institution between 1820-1865.
How would you like us to help you with this assignment?
@ms sue i have already wrote it i just need someone to proofread it and make sure it is adequate (i meant to put that on the question)
Slavery was a highly controversial subject in the 19th century; Some people were proslavery while others were antislavery. Over half of the united states believed that slavery was unjust, but the Southern states believed slaves were necessary for a successful economy. Southern plantation owners argued consitently that it was morally, politically, and economically constitutional to have slaves. Luckily, the underground railroad which rooted from members of the abolitionist movement helped slaves escape to freedom.
Slaves had a cabin to sleep in and food to eat but were shut out from the world; This was as many plantation owners argued to prove slavery is ethically okay. Many southerners believed they were doing the African Americans a favor. They had not thought of them as humans, as they could not make it in the outside world. Slavery has been going on for centuries, such as the slaves in Rome. On the other hand people abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison promoted freedom for all slaves in his writing of the "liberator".
Southerners felt giving up slavery meant giving up their wealth. Slaves are these reason for a mass production of cotton, which was the number one industry of the united states. If slavery was outlawed the united state's income would decrease dramatically. The orth believed African Americans are equal, which means they should be paid for their labor. The southerners had a stronger economic argument saying many Americans would lose their jobs. Would have America fallen into a great depression if slavery was banned? If slaves were paid for cotton labor, maybe they would be motivated to do more. It could have increased America's trade and also saved many of these slave's lives.
An African American was a Caucasian man's property, not a human being. For instance, the 3/5 compromise states that each African American man only counts for 3/5 of a person. Southerners didn't want to give up their "property" and liked how it increased the state's population. This helped get more people in the house for a state. People in the north felt blacks were human too and deserved to be free. If they were free, they could count as a whole person. This would increase a state's representation more than having slaves counted as 3/5 of a person. Therefore political, slavery is not reasonable.
Slavery pushed major sectionalism between the south and north during the 19th century. They argued over whether slavery was moral, politically, and economically wrong or right. Southerners felt African Americans were meant to be below whites and were not human, but a white man's property. A southern white man's greed and racism led them to think that slavery was inevitable.
This is regenia by the way posting on my friends because i'm on her laptop
To analyze how supporters of slavery in the nineteenth century used political, moral, and economic arguments to defend it between 1820-1865, we can start by examining each category individually.
1. Political arguments: Supporters of slavery engaged in various political arguments to defend the institution. One significant argument was the idea of states' rights, emphasizing the power of individual states to determine their own laws and institutions, including the right to maintain and regulate slavery. Advocates argued that the federal government should not interfere with this state-level decision-making process. They viewed any attempts to ban or limit slavery as a violation of states' rights, undermining the principles of democracy and the Constitution.
2. Moral arguments: Supporters of slavery also employed moral justifications to defend the peculiar institution. They contended that slavery was a necessary evil, arguing that it was a benevolent institution that provided slaves with paternalistic care and Christianity. They claimed that slaves benefited from the "civilizing" influence of their owners, and that slavery provided them with better living conditions, stability, and protection than they would experience otherwise. Some supporters even argued that enslaved individuals were intellectually and morally inferior, making them reliant on white slaveholders for guidance and care.
3. Economic arguments: Economic justifications for slavery were prevalent among supporters. They argued that slavery was essential to the southern agrarian economy, particularly the cultivation of cash crops like cotton, tobacco, and rice. Slavery provided a cheap and abundant labor force, enabling plantation owners to maximize productivity and profits. Supporters claimed that without slavery, the southern economy would collapse, leading to widespread poverty and social unrest. Additionally, they highlighted that the North directly benefited economically from the slave economy through industries like shipping, textiles, and finance, further entangling the issue.
To fully understand the specific arguments made during this time period, it is beneficial to research primary sources such as speeches, literature, and debates by prominent figures. Key figures like John C. Calhoun, George Fitzhugh, and Thomas R. Dew expressed and shaped these arguments in their writings and public engagements. Additionally, understanding the historical context, such as the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, and the Dred Scott decision of 1857, will provide a deeper comprehension of the political climate surrounding slavery during this period.