Friday, September 13, 2013

Defending the 'Peculiar Institution'

We struggled in class the other day to address the idea that an individual could own slaves, and still profess to be Christian.  Slavery was often called a 'peculiar institution', meaning that it was difficult to defend slavery on a moral basis, but yet it still persisted as an economic necessity.

What are some of the arguments presented in the reading that defend slavery?  Which ones hold water?

Remember that we need to put ourselves in a 19th century mindset...instead of immediately dismissing all the arguments as moot, consider why they were presented and defended at the time.

13 comments:

  1. In these readings it was clear that slaves were needed on an economic necessity. But it was so wrong to use them the way there masters did. In "William Harper's apology" He said, "it is true that the slave is driven to labor by stripes [lashes]" This means that the slave was forced into working by getting whipped. But in "the 'Blessings' of the slave" it was very clear that if you "free them from control, and how soon does poverty and wretchedness take them!" This stood out to me because it was true, if the master would free them who's going to hire a free slave in the south? very little to no one would. So the slaves would starve. The master believed that he would do the slave a favor by keeping them as there property. This piece of work has a good point the master is supporting there slaves with food and shelter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Even though slavery is wrong, in these readings some people made it clear that slavery was okay. In the reading "The Blessing of the Slave" it said "And many masters have discovered, too, that their slaves are more temperate, more industrious, more kind to one another, more cheerful, more faithful, and more obedient under the ameliorating influences of religion". I can see how slave masters back them thought that being a Christian would save them in the end from being so cruel to their slaves. However they make it sound like the slaves were these happy, obedient, working class people who enjoyed their job who were never whipped. People back then also argued that slavery was a necessity to help boost their economy. In "Slaves Don't Strike" it says "No others were to be had, and it was impossible to purchase slaves in a few days. In that short time he lost produce to the value of $10,000". It is clear that in just a few day of work, a farmer can make tons of money and when he has no slaves he loses tons of money that ultimately bring down the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In 'William Harpers Apology' slavery was defended when he said "The Africans brought to us had been slaves in their own country and only underwent a change of masters". This quote is defending slavery because he is saying that since they were already slaves before, they are going to stay slaves but just for a different master. In this passage, William Harper is saying that slavery is good and has "given the means of subsistence". In "The Blessings of the Slave" it talks about how slaves are treated so well and get clothed and fed, therefore they are also defending slavery. In this passage Solon Robinson believes that there has never been an instance that a slave has gotten injured from working too hard. This shows that this passage is also defending slavery because Robinson thinks that there is no harm in it. In "Slaves Don't Strike" they also defend slavery. They say that emancipation would "wipe out the reliable supply of labor". This shows that slavery is defended in every reading.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There were a multitude of arguments presented in the reading that defended slavery. Though I believe that slavery was a terrible part of our history, I also feel that some of the arguments for slavery did stand true at the time. “The Africans brought to us had been slaves in their won country and only underwent a change of masters” was the first argument for slavery that I noticed. Because I don’t know how the slaves were living before they were slaves in the US, I do not know if this statement could be true. If it were the case that the people that were being brought to the US from Africa to be slaves were already slaves in their country, which doesn’t make it right, it would be a decent defense. Another argument that I found for slavery was that slaves were provided with security that they would not have had without having been a slave. I feel that this argument is a little stretched out due to the fact that had they not been brought to the US to be slaves, we do not know what would have happened to them. Being brought to the US could have been better than staying in Africa or it couldn’t have. We really cant know from what have to work with. The last argument that I found for slavery was that “ending slavery would wipe out the reliable southern agriculture”. I find this to be the most convincing reason to not be against slavery. At the time, the only stable source of labor came from slaves. There were no huge widespread machines and hiring someone isn’t as cost efficient as having someone do it for free. I do not know what happened to southern agricultures stability after slavery was abolished, but we do continue to have many agricultural products coming from the south today due to machines.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In these reading were shown what slave owners or masters thought about slavery and why it as okay. Each reading explained a slightly different reason as to why it was "okay." One of the reasons that really stuck out to me was how one said that the slaves had already been slaves and they were simply "changing masters." This stuck out to me so much because that simply is not true. Ever since I was in elementary school we learned that free africans were taken from their homes and brought to america, captured, some having absolutely no idea who was taking them and where they were going. This all makes the statement false because they were not in fact previously slaves at all. Another man made it seem like being enslaved was actually better for the slaves than to be free, because if they were free "how soon does poverty and wretchedness overtake them"? Another reading talked about how the slaves were needed, because when one farmer payed workers (and payed them a very high salary) they stopped working demanding even more pay, and the man lost $10,000.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No pain, no gain. For every country, there probably is at least one scandal in its history. Without scarifies that these African slaves made, U.S. would not become what it is today. It is surely unfair for those slaves, but maybe their lives were not as bad as those anti-slavery propaganda shows. In order to have a comprehensive understanding on slavery, it is necessary to listen to the pro-slavery side too. As mentioned in the material, majority of slaves were treated and fed well. Only on some of the plantation, slaves were not treated well because of their crazy master. Crazy and cold-blooded people always exist, no matter in slavery or in other aspects. Another solid point that is made in these articles is that slavery is more profitable than white labors. For example, slaves are not eligible for striking, which guarantee their loyalty toward their master, but white labors have rights, freedom and are able to quit working for unsatisfying wages. Therefore, profit is the one struggle that concerns slave owners the most if slavery is abolished.

    ReplyDelete
  7. no joke that dude wrote "This work is too hard so we should enslave and destroy peoples lives so we can live in comfort." That is by far the most ignorant narrow minded laziest most revolting thing i have ever read. he basically said " if there arent black people to tourture then we have to be humane and actually work for stuff we want and pay people to do stuff for us". how did god take away there freedoms they dragged slaves ancestors from their homes and forced them to work for centuries thats by the hand of slave holders nothing they did was humane and productive for the slaves they ruined millions and millions of lives.

    ReplyDelete
  8. According to the readings, slavery was in its sick and twisted way a blessing to the slaves. The passages all said that slavery was in a way sheltering the African Americans from a terrible life. That under their rule, they would feed them and cloth them which in a way was true. In their mind this favor would be re payed with their labor and hard work. In their eyes it was necessary to whip them in order to get this payment. In views more of economy they were a necessity: they were considered free labor and without them havoc would occur. In their eyes they were protecting helpless creatures and bringing them together by forcing their religion on them. In a way this was only an excuse in order to justify their immoral acts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In "William Harper's Apology," one of the first defenses of slavery that he mentioned was the fact that the African slaves were already previously slaves, and the only difference were the masters. Towards the end of his writing, William also states that slavery has "given existence to millions of slaves" and existence to "millions of freemen in our Confederate United States." In regards resources, William says that slavery has helped civilization advance and progress.

    In "The Blessings of the Slave," Solon Robinson argues that if slaves were freed, they would just be overcome by poverty. He then states that the "so-called miserable, oppressed, abused, starved slaves" were a lot better off than any other laboring peasantry because they were clothed, fed and taken care of. He defends the cruel treatment of slaves by comparing it to the abuse of wives, children, other workers, and animals.

    In "Slaves Don't Strike," slavery is again defended by the idea that if slaves were freed, they would be "doomed." However, it also says that slavery "must be the work of time," that slaves are needed to pick the crops.

    The only argument that "holds water" is the fact that a labor force was needed and slaves were the cheapest and easiest.


    I literally cannot read the cartoon

    ReplyDelete
  10. wait, do we have to write these with correct grammar and punctuation?

    because sometimes I get lazy...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Out of the many arguments for slavery that were presented, only a few were reasonable and didn't seem like propaganda. However, these arguments still did not justify the moral abomination of slavery. Probably the most honest, and most important argument made was that our nation was built on the backs of slaves. The entire country, including the abolitionists, benefited from the vastly cheaper cotton, the labor opportunities in textile mills, and from the enlarged economy. As William Harper pointed out, millions of people around the world were able to have better lives due to slavery. To people these days, this does not vindicate the enslavement of an entire race. But we have not changed that much in the past century and a half. Do we not ignore the poor working conditions and exploitation of workers in Asia when we buy a cheap pair of shoes or cheap article of clothing in the store? Another argument made by Solon Robinson was that slaves wouldn't be any better off if they were freed. This actually was true, other than a law saying that they were free, African-Americans were treated about the same. They were still discriminated against, they were still treated as a lower class, they were still exploited, and they were still tortured and killed by the KKK. No real differences in their standard of living occurred until the 1960's. Even today there is still rampant racism in our country. So a few honest and compelling arguments were made in these passages. But the fact is that it is still better to be a poor wage laborer and be free, than it is to be enslaved.

    ReplyDelete
  12. From tonight's reading, I see why abolishing slavery is so hard. A lot of people held the argument of slavery on the supporting side. It is indeed true that slavery brought a lot of good things to America. William Harper claims the point which without slavery, white man may not exist on this continent as it is today. And also I think, on the extend of that point, the U.S. would not be as democratic as it is today. Solon Robinson says in "the 'blessings' of the slave" not a single slaves of the South can be found injured from long and excessive labor. I doubt that statement because it does not fit with my previous knowledge. The argument which I think holds the most water is "slavery contributes to the economy. Cotton, Staples are important agriculture of America. Slaves do most of the work in the farm. In "Slaves Don't Strike", a farmer lost the value of $10,000 agricultural products in a few days without slaves, and we are talking about the 19th century, $10,000 worth a lot more than today. Therefore, the abolish of slavery can make the economy a collapse if all farmers loses slave labor.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The main reason that slavery kept going on for as long as it did was because of how dependent the economy became on it, especially in the south. Although we are able to analyze what the people of that time could have been thinking we really can't fully understand the way people of their time looked at it. Obviously there's blame on them for conducting such a gruesome and shameful thing as slavery but at the end of the day they really were products of their time which i think many people fail to realize. The way we look at how bad the slave-owner relationship really was is exaggerate to some extent because we compare it to our current time period and our 2013 point of views. I think when discussing this topic a lot of people reference back to people like John Locke and say that there had to have been more people like him but to the early americans money was really the motive.

    ReplyDelete