Monday, September 16, 2013

The Controversy of Abolition

I know it is difficult for us to empathize with the mindset of slaveowners.  To us, abolition and emancipation make sense, because they are the morally justified.  The readings for tonight focus not only on justifying slavery, but on refuting the abolition movement and denouncing it as 'impossible.'

These readings are difficult to swallow, especially Thomas E. Dew's, but juxtapose them in the time they are written.  Remember that the Nat Turner revolt took place in 1831.  How does this shape the perspective that these authors take?  Who do you think is their intended audience?

13 comments:

  1. No matter where you were from there were people for slavery. But They had a point if they were to free all the slaves then the farms would not be able to supply to the union. These authors would be trying to attract someone who was for slavery or who was on the fence about it. Because they talk about how the "two different races, as we have before seen, cannot easily harmonize together." this makes no sense to me because they are just making this accusation based on the color of there skin. If someone who was in the middle between slavery and freedom they would be convinced to be for slavery because without the slaves farms would not be able to produce. Which was a problem because then people would not get food. These authors definitely meant everything that they said and believe that slavery is a good thing and how they should keep it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The reasoning behind these writings is justifiable for the time they were written. Everyone was frantic about what would happen to the agriculture in the south if slavery was abolished. The question about North versus South is interesting with the evidence of pro-slavery northerners because with that comes even if few, anti-slavery southerners. I feel that the authors of these writings truly believed that with the abolition of slavery would come the downfall of southern agriculture which i have to agree, was a justifiable argument for the time. As the assumption of different races not being able to harmonize goes, i think that they're just that, assumptions. The writers could not have known how things would go if slavery was to be abolished because it had not been abolished yet. I feel that these statements were added in persuasion for the less educated people to join against slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Although slavery is often a touchy, painful subject in many of our hearts it is important to try to understand through these readings what went through the minds of the white owners in order to fully understand the concept of slavery.
    In "the virtues of slavery", it seems that there is a sense that slavery is wrong, but I think fear also kept slave owners from releasing their slaves. In the text it states that, "liberate our slaves and every year you would hear of insurrections and plots", which to me is a clear sign of fear. If one really begins to think about the situation of a white person he/she is constantly surrounded by the people that they treat worst than a doormat. Perhaps keeping these people under constant oppression and abuse was their way from preventing revolts especially after the Nat Turner revolt. I think it was after this that the true reality of the evil they had done came about: after they realized that the laves could and would take action against them for the abuse.Also, in the minds of the average white slave owner they were truly superior, they also thought that African Americans could never co-exist in harmony with them Not to mention that the entire labor and economy for the south was solely dependent on this free form of labor. Clearly greed was a strong push for slavery in their minds: as Sifiso stated in class who wouldn't want free labor and someone to take their anger out on? Also, according to the Digital History statement the South saw the North as trying to infringe on their government which clearly made them even more upset and more against the North. They felt as though their rights were being taken away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. WHile evyerone nowadays agree that slavery was morally unjustafiably wrong, for this particular time period these mens reasons for not wanting to end slavery made sense to them. Yes the farmers were all selfish and only worried about their crops dying without slaves, but at the same time if the farms stopped producing food and cotton then there would be a huge problem with making things like clothes or just even getting food. The slave owners and plantation owners were just scared of what would happen once they no longer had slaves to work in the fields. The other article states that he simply would do anything for liberty.. which he did not see freeing the slaves as. The points of view for being for slavery could be seen for this time period, even though they were still morally wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  5. When reading about pro-slavery, it has to be understood that they were written during a time where slavery wasn't frowned upon by everyone, but actually supported. Dew says that slaves are not economically or morally fit for freedom. He argues that a free slave will cause trouble and engage in mischief and murder. He is completely, and without a doubt, pro-slavery. He believes that slavery has done more good than bad. One of the arguments that I don't really agree with is that the two races would not get along with each other. Yes, it's probably true that the white people would segregate the freed slaves, but they're already being segregated. Giving them freedom is just morally right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As Southerners, these authors likely owned slaves, so they would obviously be defending slavery because they were making money off of it. Even if they didn't own slaves, their entire society relied on slavery.
    In Thomas Drew's narrative, he brought up the argument that large numbers of African Americans would resort to crime after being emancipated. Although this statement is grossly prejudiced, it is understandable that he pointed it out. This is because, in the same year, Nat Turner lead a bunch of slaves in a revolt in which they killed more than eighty white people. This event terrified the slave owners because they saw what their slaves were capable of.
    Both of these texts were written to debate the abolitionists. The former New Yorker went even further to insult the moral integrity of the abolitionists, most likely to divert the attention away from the slave owners like himself.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Of course it would make sense that a lot of people were on the supporting side of slavery, that is why only the civil war could abolish slavery. Stepping into a southern farmer's shoes, nobody would anti-slaves, if yourself is not slave or the race of most slaves, because every human being is selfish, no such thing is morality in between them and slaves. Also, the point that emancipate cannot be done in a short period. I agree with if emancipate slaves immediately, would have many problems. Slaves themselves can't find any food. And the farms produce less food, and then chain reaction in the economic, boomm!!. Murder is a true problem. If the liberated slaves couldn't find food, then they would have to rob or even murder someone. Although today we think it is morally right to free slaves, in the shoes of a master, personal profit is the first priority. Even today, one's profit is mostly the most important.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is difficult for us to understand slavery today because obviously for most of us this period of history was terrible, awful and disgusting. But it is also interesting to take the place of the slave owners and see how they thought and see their reasons why they did not want to allow the freedom and emancipation. As we see in the reading of Thomas R, Dew, the South feared the emancipation for the simple fact that all their economy depended directly on slavery because without them agriculture would fall down as the text says "the southern whole country would be visited with immediate and usually famine ". That was the most argument used by southerners.. but, they were was also afraid because as they say "liberate our slaves, and every year you would hear of insurrections and plots .."
    Besides that, an "argument" I can not understand is when he says "two totally different races, as we have before seen cannot easily ago harmonize together" because they are the ones that cause this, and whites think they are superior than black slaves only because of the fact of having a different skin tone

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thomas R. Dew had the last major debate against emancipation. He basically says that the south would end up failing if slavery ended. He defends slavery by saying slaves do not deserve freedom because they are"economically and morally unfit" for it. He says that blacks and whites will never be able to "harmonize". From Dews perspective you can see that he does not believe that slaves should be free. E.W Taylor also states that emancipation will never take place. Taylor is from the south and I think both of these authors intended audience is the people of the government. I think this because they are saying how against emancipation they are, and the government is mostly in charge of this. Also, Dew talks about Thomas Jefferson and how he is the "master" of this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No doubt that these articles were written for people who were pro slavery. One of the first things that stood out to me was in the article by Thomas R. Dew, he said "The slave is not only economically but morally unfit for freedom." Who is he to decide that this social class of people called "slaves" are not to be awarded freedom and that if they are free then its morally wrong. Even though it is hard to understand why people thought that it was okay to own another person, they always had a reason to back themselves up. Thomas R. Dew also say "The slaves of a good master are his warmest, most constant, and most devoted friends." This is all false, but this is coming from the point of view of a master and not a slave. Masters and slaves both remember slavery times to the extreme of both ends with slaves saying that it was life threatening and with masters saying it was all "war and fuzzy" so which side is really true?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thomas R. Dew said that slaves would be able to coincide with the society that whites had set up. For one thing a person who tries to say that another race wouldn't mix with the one that has been enslaving and tormenting it for thousands of years is understandable yet thousands of free black men and women not only coincide with american whites but with whites all around the world. the racial ignorance is beyond me why a man would that most slaves loved to be inslaved is ridiculous. millions of slaves ran away from kind and evil masters alike no man wants to enslaved that is ridiculous every person has dreams and ambitions just because this man choose to dismiss them dosent make it true

    ReplyDelete
  12. Althougn people in nowdays are all opposed to slavery, mind set of americans in the 19 centuary was completely different. Based on the article by Thomas E. Dew, They had believed that African Americans were not only morally but intellectually interior compared to the Whites and therefore believed that slavery was economically and morally unfit for freedom. The fact that Thomas E. Dew says black and whites can not harmonize because they are totally different race exemplifies how americans believed in White Supremacy. They believed that they needed to inculcate their slaves as they teach children. This is all false, because in reality, skin colors doesn't justify anybody's intellctuality or morality. Therefore, Thomas E. Dew's thought that blacks and white can not harmonize together could only be self-justification for his evil thought.

    ReplyDelete
  13. People are products of their time. Pieces like this not only attest to that but also show that it's hard for people to step out of their own shoes and look at situations from a different perspective. It's difficult for people to separate their own views from the objective. If this were easier politics wouldn't be rooted the same way. #humans.

    ReplyDelete