What was the argument for slavery?

Yorkshire_terrier · Corporal Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Posts: 1

In your opinion what was the argument for slavery? Question

kevin · First Sergeant Joined: 19 May 2005 Posts: 31

First, let me state there is no good argument for slavery.

At the time of the Civil War the argument for slavery was both economic and religious. The greatest argument was economic. The economy of the Southern states was agrarian based and required large amounts of manual labor to sustain. While a relatively small minority of whites owned slaves in the South in 1860, the majority of the white Southern population understood the impact of losing slavery on their economic well being.

The External slave trade had ended nearly a half century before the war, meaning importation of slaves from outside of the boundaries of the United States was no longer legal. There was, however, a growing internal slave trade. The Southern states were dependent upon slave labor to process their primary products of cotton and tobacco. The Northern states were also dependent on the Southern economy to supply the raw materials for a growing industrial base and for the taxes collected from the Southern states. While it seemed simple to outlaw slavery, it would have meant economic hardship to many who could not see an economic replacement for slave labor.

Many Southern landholders knew that technology would eventually lead to a replacement of slavery. There had been several referendums to abolish slavery brought to the legislatures. Nearly 30 years before the war one of these failed to pass by a handful of votes in Virginia. The movement was tabled for a revote, which was to occur in the 1860s. It is very likely that in Virginia at least, slavery would have been abolished without the war to do so.

This was the argument of the Southern states - to be left alone to determine on a state by state basis when and how to abolish the "peculiar institution" of slavery. The argument of many in the Northern states was slavery is immoral and should be abolished immediately. When Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, the Southern states saw this as the tipping point.

The other argument for slavery was religious in nature. The abolitionist movement in the North was led by the Unitarian church. While there were many other protestant denominations opposed to slavery, the Universalists were leading the charge. During the 1840s, however, the Universalists rejected the deity of Christ and were viewed by Christians in the South as pagans. At the time about 99% of the population in the Southern states considered themselves Christian.

Southerners therefore viewed the abolitionist ideas of the North as not having a biblical foundation. Many Southerners viewed slavery as something the Bible allowed, if not condoned. While there were pastors and clergy in the North who were pointing out the differences in Biblical slavery (still wrong, by the way) from the slavery of the Southern plantations, their preaching was falling on deaf ears in the South. These Northern pastors were lumped in with the Universalist church.

One sermon from the period just before the war talks about how slave families in ancient times were not allowed to be separated, but rather the law required children of a slave family to remain with their parents. Also, slaves were often able to work to buy their freedom. Finally, the Bible provided for a year of Jubilee every 7 years, at which time slaves were freed and debt forgiven.

In the 1800s there were some slaves who were able to earn some money on the side and eventually purchase their freedom. There were even some blacks who owned slaves. Many Southern slave owners viewed their slaves as lesser beings, however, as persons not capable of self governance and requiring a "benevolent" master as head of their family.

Many slaveholders interpreted ownership of slaves through the eyes of scripture. Joseph, son of Jacob (Israel) was a slave who was eventually elevated to governor of all of Egypt, 2nd to only Pharaoh. In this way some slaveholders made their slaves overseers, managers, and even representatives of their business interests. Some slaves were taught to read and write, were teachers and even pastors of plantation churches attended by the white and black of the area. This did not change the fact they were slaves, but the owners did not see this as an issue.

In 1860 the Reverend Parker in his famous "Thanksgiving Sermon" referenced the freeing of the slaves on the island of Santo Domingo some 25 years earlier as an example of how doing the same in the Southern states would wreck the economy. Reverend Parker also referred to the slaves as people who required a loving family to care for them, believing slaves were not capable of being free and on their own.

From the writings of the day it is clear there were vastly different views in the North from those in the South about slavery and the abilities of black and white people to self govern. There were also many in the South who felt their economic well being was threatened by the election of Abraham Lincoln. And overall there was a large percentage of Southerners who felt the North did not understand their situation, Southerners who were opposed to slavery, yet were also opposed to someone else telling them how to handle the situation.

The above understanding of the situation is, of course, open to debate. This is the understanding I have from what I have read from the period. I don’t believe anyone today in the United States would support slavery, or even attempt to justify it based on the arguments give above. In the 1800’s, however, there was a different interpretation of slavery based on history and culture and there was, of course, the ever present lure, or fear, of the dollar.