1. Prepare for the debate
2. Post a comment to the following: the people in the South claimed slaves were essential for their economy. Based on your reading and the video we watched. Do you believe that slavery should have been allowed in our country during the early part of the 1800's?
SARA ROSENBERG
ReplyDeleteI believe that slavery should not have been allowed in the United States during the early part of the 1800's because it weakened the American economy in the long run. Each spike in cotton production or sales was immediately followed by a depression, which was followed by another surge in sales and yet another depression. There were three "boom periods" of cotton in America that followed this pattern: 1815-1819, 1832-1837 and 1849-1860. Each "boom period" was followed by a depression, and the economy fluctuated because of this, which did not provide a steady stream of income for the United States and made balancing the economy difficult.
Another reason slavery should not have been allowed in the early 1800s is because it made the transition into industrialism more difficult. As the American south became more industrialized, the question arose as to whether to employ free whites or enslaved blacks. If slavery were not allowed during this time period, there would be no question as to who would get those jobs--it would have been the free people who needed work. This would have created jobs for those people who needed a source of income, and this group of people could have included blacks, as well. If slavery had not been allowed during this time period, black people would have been free and looking for a job to support themselves, which would place them in the new factories created by the industrialization of the United States. Not only would white people get industrial jobs, but some black people most likely would as well, which could have begun the process of seeing blacks and whites as equals much earlier in our history. Also, because slavery was in place, white people did not want to work in the new industrial jobs because they felt as though they were in the same class as a slave and would not be socially accepted. Because of this, white people were somewhat reluctant to take the new jobs, while at the same time slave-owners wanted to keep their slaves.
Overall, I do not think that slavery should have been allowed in American in the early 1800s because it did not help us stabilize economically because of the depressions following each "boom period", and it made the transition to industrial work more difficult because it made the work of employing people to those jobs difficult and socially awkward.
I completely agree that the continued dependence on cotton hindered the South in growing economically and that industrialization like the North would have helped the South to progress. However, I believe that accepting industrialism was a rather complex issue. It had not been long enough for a real boom of progress to be seen in the North from their endorsement of industrialization, and the South had always relied on agriculture to meet their needs. Therefore, I don't believe the southerners were completely at fault in not hopping on industrialization.
DeleteThough I morally agree with your ideas I believe without letting slavery exist in the beginning the constitution would have not been ratified. Without the souths proceeds from slave labor the United States of America would have to pay back even more debt that it already owed. You also make a good point bring up the depressions after the boom periods because it shows that the economy in the south was not stable. I think this proves that it was a good idea that the founding fathers left the issue of slavery alone for a while. Now that the America was unified under the constitution and had years to become more stable as a country it was ready to deal with the issue of slavery.
DeleteI agree with you Sara that the slavery should not have been allowed since it encouraged a reliable economy. I think it is important to note that the only product from allowing slavery in the US today is racism. Like you said Sara, industrialization would "have begun the process of seeing blacks and whites as equals much earlier in our history". The Southern economy was not going to survive solely on agriculture and our economy today does not depend on agriculture, but industry. It does more harm than good to have the South survive on an unsustainable economy that will help them in the future.
DeleteJOHN STRAHAN
ReplyDeleteIn the American South, slavery was prevalent because of rampant racism and because the people believed that slavery was absolutely essential to their economy. Both of the reasons that the southerners gave to justify slavery were false. Slavery should not have been permitted because it was not critical to the economy, and it was morally abhorrent.
Many of the Southerners made the claim that slavery was absolutely essential to the economy. Whenever a resource becomes scarce, people tend to find ways to carry on without that resource. For example, when timber became hard to find in England, the English adopted coal. The same principle applies to slavery. If the southern farmers had not been able to get slaves, they would have come up with many ways to profitably run the farms without relying on slave labor. Many whites in the South did not own slaves, and they were often able to run profitable farms. The institution of slavery may have made farming slightly more profitable for a minority of slaveholding whites, but it certainly was not the cornerstone of the entire Southern economy.
Slavery was absolutely morally evil, and it flew in the face of all of the principles on which our country was founded. The three inalienable rights given to all men by the creator, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is easy to see that slavery restricts the right to life and liberty, for slavery is, by definition, the taking away of a person’s freedom and forcing them to work. It also revokes a person’s ability to pursue happiness. The treatment of the slaves by many of the masters was also awful. The slaves were not given much in the way of food or clothing, and they were liable to be physically abused. Often, families would be separated, causing great emotional torture. The underlying justification for all of the terrible treatment was simple racism. The masters saw the slaves as animals, not human beings; now people see that this view is wrong and immoral.
Like everybody else, I agree with the fact that slavery was immoral. However, I disagree when you say that the Southerners could have come up with different ways to profitably run farms. 3/4 of the world's cotton came from the southern states which required a lot of labor that southerners were not willing, or maybe even capable, to do on their own. Cotton basically upheld the South's economy and it was already not as strong as the north so for the south to have less, and more expensive labor, would hurt their already weak economy. I know that this idea sounds immoral but it makes sense from an economic point of view.
DeleteI think there's another aspect to why slavery was used in the South for so long. Had slavery been abolished earlier, would anything really have changed? The white people believed whole-heartedly that they were superior to the black people. Yes now the black people would have wages, but they would also have to provide for themselves, which would become another problem. I'm guessing whatever money the blacks got would be very minimal and most likely not enough to survive. So in comparison, slavery was probably more comfortable for the blacks in terms of having a place to live and food. If slavery were abolished there would still be racism and very few of the South's problems would be solved. Therefore, I believe that before social change occurred, outlawing slavery would not be effective.
DeleteJohn, I really like your point about how if slavery had been abolished before the 1800s the South would have found other humane ways to make a profit. I think that this is absolutely true, because people have been able to adapt to changing economic situations in the past. I think that the cotton business still would have grown to be a major export for the American South, but we would have found ways to make this happen without resorting to slave labor; for example the cotton gin. The cotton gin was invented to help with the extraction of seeds in short-strand cotton so that slaves would not have to complete the tedious task of picking out the seeds. Similar inventions could have come about sooner if slave labor had not been an option for completing tasks, and we could have adapted and possibly even moved forward in our economic tactics.
DeleteThere is no doubt that slavery is completely and absolutely morally disgusting. By looking back through the ages, slavery has always rightfully been associated with mistreatment and cruelty. Whether examining the Jews under the Egyptians rule or the African Americans in the Old South, it is easy to see why slavery is viewed with such contempt. However, the example of slavery in the Old South is a complex issue.
ReplyDeleteAs is widely known, the Americans of the Old South were fixated on the growth and cultivation of cotton. While the North was embracing industrialism and becoming more efficient and prosperous, the South was stuck in their old ways. These old ways included the continuation of the use of slaves to harvest cotton. “King Cotton” was a demanding man. The crop needed tropical conditions and year-round attention to produce a prosperous and lucrative business for white southerners. For this workload, the farmers of the South (the ones that could afford them) used slaves to increase productivity and profit. Now, as aforementioned, there is no doubt that the enslavement of a people is undoubtedly unacceptable and barbaric. However, in a completely impartial view, aside from all the conscious reasons that slavery is morally incorrect, I do not believe the South was completely at fault for using slavery as an economic tactic. From a purely economic view, southerners needed (or atleast they believed that they did) slaves to sustain their economy. Although they could’ve converted to industrialism, as we say they should have now, how were they supposed to know of the benefits of industrialization? At the time, slavery was not a scoffed-at anomaly as it is now. Although the North was slowly beginning to form its stance on the issue, there was no one, atleast for a while, that strongly advocated for the abolition of slavery. Even though their economy fluctuated, the South still survived, and the absolute endorsement and implementation of industrialization was a risk because it had never been done in the South before. Although unpredictable, the cultivation of cotton was crucial for southerners, and the use of slaves was just something that had always been done. Morally, slavery was and still is a horrible encroachment on the natural-born right to freedom of all men and women. However, from an economic standpoint, the use of slavery in the Old South was in a different and unpredictable era, and was one of the only things that they could rely on to help them survive.
I agree with your point about how the South didn't fully understand the benefits of industrialization. This is definitely one of the reasons that they clung to slavery for so long. The separation between the North and South allowed for the South to be very stuck with their ways and uncooperative when it came time for change.
DeleteColby, I agree with your point at the end about how the south needed slavery to survive. I also wanted to expand upon your reference to the north. The north's economy was far superior to the south's, so the south needed slavery in order to keep up with an ever growing nation. Even though slavery was a terrible point in our history, it benefitted the country by attempting to keep the two economies somewhat linked.
DeleteI would like to say that Slavery should have been illegal in the early 1800’s but because of economic and social reason it would have been almost impossible for the United States of America to survive. If the founding fathers had made slavery illegal in the constitution, the southern states would have not ratified it. With out the constitution America would not have been survived. We also needed the south for economic reasons. After the America Revolution they had already paid off their debt because of their profitable agricultural business. These profits were from slave labor and were necessary for America to refund its debts. Especially with the invention of the cotton gin slaves were needed even more to tend to the fields. Even though the north the becoming very industrialist the south was faring well from its production in agriculture. The south would also protest from the illegalization of slaves because it would disrupt their way of life. They had been living with having slaves for so long, for the constitution to make it illegal would cause uproar amongst the southerners, even if they didn’t own slaves. Slaves were seen as a sign of status. Even though only ¼ of the population owned slaves because that ¼ of the population was so powerful they controlled most of the wealth. Also the average person was afraid that if the slaves became free than that they would come a take their jobs. This combined fear and power of the plantation owners kept the south from even thinking about illegalizing slavery. With allowing slavery in the early 1800 America was able to succeed as a nation because of the cooperation of the south.
ReplyDeleteI understand and agree with your point Kelly. The Southern states would most definitely have not ratified the Constitution if slavery was illegal and the Southern states were beneficial to the Northern colonies. I think this is an important fact to remember because not everybody in the early 1800's agreed with slavery which is a common misperception. Like you said, only 1/4 of the population owned slaves and others who supported it but did not own slaves was because it made them feel inferior and they were afraid of losing their jobs. Also, slavery was the South's way of life and if slavery was banned it would require the South to completely change how they lived which could have created huge and unwanted problems.
DeleteEven though slavery is morally wrong it is important to remember it was essential to the South and the creation of the Constitution.
Clare Noone
DeleteKelly I agree with your point about the Southern states not ratifying the constitution if savery had been made illegal within the Constitution. That's something that I had never thought of before and I think it had a HUGE affect on the differences between the Northern and Southern states and why just in general their opinions were different. You brought up another point that the Southerners would have rebelled basically if slavery was abolished and I think that is another difference between the north and south. The south realized they had a very profitable agriculture-based economy that relied on the work of slaves and if slavery had been abolished, their economy would have been too. They were just not ready to industrialize yet.
Taylor Scholefield
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara and John with the idea that slavery should not have been allowed because it is morally wrong and against what the Constitution stands for even though Southerners described it as "a positive good rather than a necessary evil." The movie we watched in class today is a good example of how cruel it was. Slaves were whipped for trying to escape to freedom, which was their right to have, and were forced to live in horrible living conditions without proper clothing. Slaves were deprived of all of their basic rights that people living in America were given.
Also, I think Slavery ultimately weakened the Southern states. Southerners depended on slaves to do the hard and tedious work they did not want to. Southerners spent so much time, money and effort on buying and controlling their slaves that they wasted precious time and money to invest in other businesses or industries that could have been more beneficial than cotton. The South already depended on the North for economics. Not only was the South already not as successful as the North but also at one time it is believed that slaves being sold was the most important “crop” in the south.
This was no way to successfully sustain an economy which is why Slavery should not have been allowed in the early 1800’s. Not only was it morally wrong but it hurt the southern economy.
I can see where you're coming from, Taylor, but I disagree with you. I believe that the use of slavery was for economic purposes, regardless of the treatment of the slaves. Obviously, there are other issues which you mentioned, but just looking at America in the early 1800s, a new Nation that was still developing, establishing the economy was crucial. The usage of slaves in the early 1800s, when many issues with slavery had not yet risen, was purely for benefitting the economy, and therefore essential for America's development. I do agree that slavery grew to be something worse, but just talking about whether it should have been allowed in the early 1800s, it improved their economy.
DeleteLike Jane, I can see how you believe this and partially agree with you. I agree that slavery terminated the rights of the slaves, which is unconstitutional. But I have to disagree with your second paragraph. Yes, the Southerners spent a lot of time, money, and effort with the slaves, but it was necessary for their economical growth. The Southerners could have abandoned cotton and moved on to investing in other business or industries, but why abandon a staple crop that they know all about and makes a good profit? All they needed was as many hands working for them as they could get. The amount of money they would have lost from ceasing their cotton plantations probably would have been more than they pay for the slaves.
DeleteI agree with you, Taylor, in what you said about how slavery ultimately weakened the Southern states. In the long run, slavery weakened both the economy and the social structure of the Southern states. The white people did not want to be equal to a slave, and were therefore reluctant to go to work in industrial jobs that were beginning to pop up in the South. This slowed down the revenue that could have been raised from white people working in those jobs, and it made those white people who agreed to work in the industrial field feel less than human,
DeleteClare Noone
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Colby, though my classmates have made some very good points as well. Although slavery in general and the idea of owning a human being is immoral, completely barbaric, and just plain horrible, I believe that slavery was in fact essential for the Southern economy. The question we have to ask ourselves is do we believe slavery should have been allowed in the early 1800s? I agree owning slaves and slave labor/trade is completely immoral, but I believe in some cases, slavery was essential to the Southern economy. A product called short staple cotton was one of the reasons slavery lasted so long. The cotton could be harvested year round in the Southern states. The invention of the cotton gin in 1793 also helped to pick more cotton in a shorter amount of time, making more profit off of more cotton. The industry and also the demand for cotton grew across the South and I'm sure, although it was not mentioned in the book, the need for cotton was also in the North, seeing as though it was a staple product of clothes in the 1800s. Not only did the cotton industry grow in the early 1800s, but many people believed that because of such success from the cotton industry, it was the cornerstone of the American nation. John brought up the point that "Whenever a resource becomes scarce, people tend to find ways to carry on without that resource". And although cotton farms and plantations did move around the South in order to be more fruitful, up until the brink of the Civil War, cotton was still being massed harvested. So now we come back to the question: do we believe slavery should have been allowed in the South in the early 1800s? Although slavery was a horrible part of the American past, I believe it benefitted a growing nation and created a powerful and long lasting industry that benefitted the country when we needed it to. I think if slavery had not been allowed in the 1800s then we would have a different America than the one we have today. And Colby brought up a good point. Americans a) did not view slavery in the way we do today and b) the harvesting/agro industry was still growing large in the 1800s, the South was not moving towards industrialization and how were the Southerners even supposed to know industrialization was the future of the United States. They viewed the economic, not moral, situation they had and believed slaves were a way to create an industry of harvesting and agriculture in America.
Yeah Clare! Holiday Birthday Buddies for life!
DeleteThe point about the North needing cotton is excellent and an innovative thought that I had never considered before. I always imagined the cotton that was cultivated to only be in circulation throughout the South, never really thinking about how important of a material it was and still is today. That brings up the point: if the South wasn't cultivating the cotton through slave labor and turned to industry, who/what workforce would supply the rest of the country with cotton?
I completely agree with you Clare and i think a good point you pick up on is about the south still growing when it came to agriculture. However I do believe that it was coming to an end anyways. In America: Past and Present it states "The South's economic development was skewed in favor of a single route to wealth, open only to white men with aces to capital gain"(pg 151). This shows that unlike the north, that was providing opportunities to more of the lower and middle class. With the south the agriculture had no real room to expand to a growing country because only the rich had opportunities.
DeleteBecause the South was dependent on slavery, I think it was necessary during this time period. The transition from an agriculturally based economic system to an industrial economic system needed to be gradual. Slavery couldn’t have simply been swept away from the South; the effect would have been detrimental to the Southern economy. Along with this point, the drastic social change that would have to occur in the South would not be effective, producing more conflict.
ReplyDeleteI think what the South didn’t recognize was how the times were changing. The wide separation between North and South socially and economically caused major conflicts. The North and South needed to work together more in order to help make the South's economy independent from slavery and help the South recognize that this change was imminent. If the South’s stance had been pro-change, then I would say slavery should have been outlawed early on in the 1800s. But because of their resistance towards leaving their plantations behind, I think slavery was necessary. What needed to happen was gradual change.
Closer to the middle of the 1800’s, though, slavery should have not been allowed. By this time, enough change ought to have occurred to put a stop to slavery. Along with the economic progress, social development was needed. The incredibly divided South needed to become more united on something other than large plantations. The South was fragile and would not have been able to withstand losing slavery in the early 1800s, but it was still a necessary change, it just needed to be gradual.
I agree with all your points completely, Olivia. I had the same response, that slavery should have been allowed in the early 1800s. I had different reasons, though, and I think that your argument of dependency could also work for proving that slavery should not have been allowed. Because of the South's strong dependence and no gradual change ever happened in this time in history, it might have been easier on the south if the issue of slavery had been dealt with beforehand. That way they could establish themselves economically in a more moral way and the transition from agriculture to industrial economies would have been easier because they would not be still dependent on slavery.
DeleteWow Olivia, I hadn't thought about this before! You brought up a very good point that the South couldn't just "sweep away" slavery all at once; it needed to be gradual. I think you're completely right. If slavery had all of a sudden been abolished, black slaves who became free would not be likely to get hired many places, racism would become even stronger, and the whole country would be hurt because the Southern economy would have been broken up. I also agree that the South did not or refused to see the benefits of industrialization and chose to stick with what they were good at: harvesting cotton using slave labor. I believe if the South had slowly started to intergrate free blacks into society, then the outcome of the Civil War would not have been the same and equal rights would not have taken so long to procure
DeleteJane MeLampy-
ReplyDeleteDuring the early 1800s, agriculture in the South was developing rapidly, as was their dependence on slavery. During this time, while the use of slavery was still relatively new, I believe that initially the sole purpose of using slaves was for benefitting their economy. This is based of the fact that as a new nation, America was still establishing itself. With more money produced with the help of slaves, the theory was that the American economy as a whole would eventually grow. However, like Colby and Clare mentioned, this is from a purely economic view.
As time passed from the early 1800s, the purpose of slavery had changed. To create more money, the internal slave trade started, with the upper south providing slaves for the lower south. This internal slave trade effectively turned slaves from being people into being property. The living conditions and treatment of these slaves were truly brutal, as depicted from the movie. In short, slavery grew to be a game of white men communicating their feelings of superiority. The white people achieved a high sense of self-esteem by belittling the black slaves. The point is, by this time the issue of slavery becomes more complex, and clearly the purpose of slavery is no longer purely for economic benefits. Comparing this time with the early 1800s, where these additional problems had not yet developed, it's fair to say that at the beginning slavery was essential for southern economic growth, regardless of the cruel treatment.
Jane, I completely agreed with you when you said, "America was still establishing itself." To add on to what you were saying, I also feel that America did not know how to deal with its relatively inexperienced economy. I feel that the planters that owned the slaves could have been overwhelmed with trying to make their economy better than it could have been during that time. I believe that slavery was just the gateway for the southern Americans to learn about their own economy. Slavery was able to illuminate the positive and negative aspects of the south's economy.
DeleteSlavery should have been allowed in our country during the early part of the 1800’s because of the large demand for cotton. At the time, cotton was the producing the main source of revenue for the south. Without the money made from cotton, the south would loose even more ground on the rapidly advancing north. If the south could not compete with north. The last thing that the United States needed during this rather fragile time period was increased tension between the north and the south. Between 1792 and 1840 the number of cotton bails that were produced increased by 1.3 million. This increase shows the need for a great workforce in order to meet the needs of an otherwise suffering economy. Although it is definitely not right to discriminate and force people to work in dyer conditions, I feel that the south needed some way to compensate for the money that they were losing. Before cotton, the United States had never really known how to deal with the success of their own resources. I view the slavery that took place during the early 1800’s as a learning experience that the south needed in order to move their economy forward in a proper way.
ReplyDeleteSlavery in the old south shows how underdeveloped our country was during the early 1800’s. Even though slavery was one of the darkest times in American history, we needed it in order to realize the value of being free. For example, the old south was thoroughly by class and inherited racial advantages. This division shows that the people of the south did not realize the value of achieving goals as a group. The people of the south only cared that their jobs were completed so that money would come. The people in the south needed slavery in order to see how discrimination or separation between any person in the united States only left the country at a disadvantage. Slavery acted as a learning experience for the south because the citizens were not experienced enough to realize the tensions that discrimination put on society.
Thomas, you have made a great point, however, I still think that slavery should not have been allowed in the country for several reasons. First of all, as Hamilton said, the South should have shifted towards manufacturing, which is proven to be more beneficial by the successful current US industrial economy. Secondly, slavery was morally abhorrent because as the same human beings beating people, changing their names, forcing them to labor, and selling them for money is unacceptable, which is the reason slavery is not allowed by law. Finally, slavery based agriculture was not as beneficial to the South as the industry was to the North, which also shows the cons of slavery.
DeleteSarah Wallace-
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that slavery is absolute cruelty, and morally wrong. The way the slaves were treated, just as some of my classmates stated above, goes against what the Constitution stands for. As a whole slavery is usually viewed by others, including myself as a time of unfairness, and mistreatment. Looking back on slavery in history, I remember it as one of the most gruesome times, a time when blacks were treated indifferently. Although slavery is not acceptable, I do believe that slavery should have been allowed in our country during the early parts of the 1800s. Thinking back to the early 1800s I do strongly believe that the intention the Southerners had for using slaves was strictly for economic reasons. By using slavery, the people in the South were able to benefit their economy. If they had not used slavery, than there would be no economic growth. As Thomas said, there was a high demand for cotton, and the number of cotton bails that were being produced greatly increased by 1.3 million. With such a great expansion it was necessary to have an immense amount of workers to keep the production rate high. Without the help of the slaves, then there would be no way for the Southerners to properly sustain their economy.
As the years went on, I do believe there became a point when the Southerners stopped using slavery for economic purposes. The Southerners stopped viewing slaves as people, and started to see them as a piece of property. At this point the white people had much more authority then the slaves and it gave them confidence. Southerners started to downgrade all of the slaves. However, the original purpose the Southerners had for using slavery was strictly economically, making it reasonable to allow slavery in our country during the early 1800s.
I agree with your whole last part, Sarah, that there came a point when the Southerners stopped using slavery for economic purposes. I believe that the line between necessary and extreme was crossed and that was when slavery really should not have been allowed for "economical purposes" any longer. If the Southerners still used slavery strictly for economical purposes and never had a change in attitude towards the slaves, do you think slavery would have hung around longer?
DeleteSarah, I understand your point. However, slaves were people, not property. The South could have modelled their economy like the North using industry to boost their economy. By allowing an attitude of racial supremacy, the United States bred modern-day prejudice and hate for people who labored for their economy. I don't think that slavery is justifiable for economic purposes when the South had an alternative model in the North to boost their economy.
DeleteNowadays as we look back to the time of slavery, we immediately characterize it is immoral and ethically wrong. We see it this way because we were taught to see it this way by our parents and those before us. The more we are taught a specific thing or way of life over the course of time, it becomes harder and harder to change our ways of thinking. Imagine if our parents taught us to never share all our lives. Then enough people convince the majority that not sharing is actually bad and wrong. Future generations will look back and wonder how that idea of not sharing could have came to be if it is so morally wrong. The idea of slavery is the same thing. At the time, slavery seemed logical to the Southerners to benefit their economy and in turn the whole country. Over time, people accepted the idea of slavery because those before them taught them to.
ReplyDeleteLike Colby and Kelly, morally, I do not believe that slavery should have been allowed during the early 1800s. That is because I was brought up to believe blacks and whites to be equal. It was the wealthy quarter of people that owned slaves who helped others believe that it was okay because they were the powerful people of the time. There was a demand for labor and poor whites did not want the low paying jobs that, in their opinion, slaves were meant to do. People other than slave owners and poor whites agreed with having slavery because they wanted their economy to flourish and wanted their country to get ahead. Economically, slavery did help with labor. But slavery also damaged the economy with the depressions that Sara mentioned. I believe that slavery shouldn’t have been allowed, but it was, and probably for too long. Slavery was necessary for the economical aspects for a certain amount of time, but when that time ran up and slavery didn’t end was when the line between necessary and extreme was crossed.
Julia, I like how you connect the general way that people view slavery to the bigger picture of how we have recieved the information. Because we've been brought up in an environment that condemns slavery and the actions of the Southern states, we've also been accustomed to thinking that way. Therefore, to step back and analyze the Southern perspective on slavery is such an eye-opening prospect because we've always assumed that it was onyl racism. However, I find that using slavery for labor could have been avoided. It was not a problem in the North because they had an industrial economy that required some labor, but not to the same extent that the Southern states utilized the system. The truth is that the Southern states brought slavery upon themselves by formulating an economy and expanding it to an extent that made it a necessity. Like Sara said before, slavery hindered industry in the Southern states.
Deletenick figure it out
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not think that slavery should have been allowed in our country during the early 1800s because it did not provide reliable means to sustain our country’s economy. The southern economy depended on agriculture, which depended on slave labor. Tobacco and cotton were the hot commodities to plantation owners. Although cotton accounted for more than half the total dollar value of American exports in the 1850s, the most successful growth periods were followed by depressions and bankruptcies (America Past and Present, 149). Any new country would want a stable economy, especially just starting out. However, the southern economy based on agriculture would not provide a US economy this stability or consistent growth. Therefore, slavery was an unnecessary and invalid institution only needed to support a southern economy solely based on agriculture.
ReplyDeleteLauren, I think you make some very good points, especially about not just condeming slavery, but the entire agriculturally based economy. The depresseions were especially significant because they showed the instability of the Southern economy. Any economy that cannot produce a steady income is not a sustainable nor profitable one. Therefore, although the Southern states were rich with fertile land, they should have shifted towards industry and manufacturing like the North did. In the end, as Hamilton predicted, that was the direction our country went it.
DeleteLauren, I also agree with your point that industrial economy was the direction the country should have been going instead of running the agriculture-based businesses. Large plantation farms almost required to have slaves, as they had to take care of the large fields and make sure all the crops are growing well. And, slavery was obviously demoralizing and not sensible, as it is banned by law. Everyone should be equal and discriminating people by race shouldn't have been the way America was heading towards at the beginning of 1800s.
DeleteSlavery, in my opinion, should not have been allowed in the early 1800s. From a moral perspective, it was blatantly and utterly wrong. Thinking about how women's rights issues have been dealt with in Congress now, many people are complaining that the medical decisions of women should not be determined by a group of men sitting in Washington, D.C. Although the times were much different, this same principle was applied when the government made decisions regarding slavery. The Southerners refused to acknowledge the African population of their states as people - they were only regarded as property. It was a result of racism and economic dependency that this attitude came about. If the Southerners had not been so dependent on slavery for their economy to sustain itself, then they would not have regarded other people as their property. To objectify people, no matter what color their skin may be, is morally abhorable. While the times may have been different back then, the very words of our Declaration of Independence state that all men were created equal. Simply, there is no moral excuse for slavery.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Kelly's comment about the Constitution, Congress agreed when dealing with slavery that they would not deal with the problem for twenty years. After twenty years, Congress could abolish slavery if necessary. However, this did not happen. Slavery continued in the South for well into the 1800s, even though it could have been changed. The Southern states, when they made this addition to the Constitution, agreed to it.
Even then, the economic situation of the South was not very profitable with slavery. As Sara mentioned before, the Southern economy fluctuated a great deal throughout the 1800s. There would be prosperous boom periods followed by massive depressions. The Souther economy was volatile because of slavery, and ended up being detrimental in some aspects. It did not create a steady line of income for the Southern states. The Southern states were well endowed with fertile lands and other natural resources that they could have used to their advantage as well. Like John said, they would have found other means of agricultural profits.
Overall, the benefits of slavery were outnumbered by the detriments of the institution. Southern people really did not have much justification for it without admitting their racism
HYUK JIN CHUNG
ReplyDeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in the early 1800s for several reasons, including slavery being morally discriminating and offensive, and not being efficient and beneficial enough for the economy. The only reason slavery was allowed in the South was because the southerners considered slavery to be critical for the economy and believed that their race was superior to the African-Americans. However, nowadays, those ideas are considered morally wrong for a reason: all men are equal and dividing people into different ranks based on the race is neither rational, nor sensible. Moreover, slavery was not beneficial for the economy of the United States, for a fact, even in the 1800s. There were more white people who did not own any slaves and owned pretty large businesses earning a lot of money. Most commonly, large plantations owned most of the slaves and were very successful, but the slaves were not their main reason of success and, considering the morals and common sense, the companies could have continued their businesses without the idea of slavery. These explanations show that people in the South mainly wanted to show their dominance over the blacks and demonstrate that the blacks did not deserve the same opportunities as the whites, as they are not on the same intelligence level (which is totally false). In addition, the Americans did not want the African-Americans taking over their jobs, which was also the reason why they opposed putting an end to slavery. This was very selfish and unfair for the black people, as they were not given the same opportunities as everyone else, despite the fact that they were the same people and citizens of the United States. Therefore, by beating the slaves up and trading them by money (as shown in “The Routs”) would have been violating their human rights, which would have been unacceptable nowadays.
Slavery should not have been abolished in the 1800s.
ReplyDeleteSeeing as the cotton industry was the backbone of the Southern and American economy, the abolition of slavery would have led to its collapse. This would cause America, still in debt to its soldiers and foreign nations, to be unable to pay of its debts.
If slavery was abolished in the 1800s, then the internal slave trade would flounder. This would cause one of America’s few internal economies to collapse, thus causing further economic strain. America needed to seem strong, especially after the XYZ Affair.
Seeing as the Irish, were coming to this country and were unable to find jobs, then the influx of unemployed blacks would only hurt the unemployment problem. This would add to the further economic stress that freeing the slaves would cause.
To reiterate, freeing the slaves would have been a bad idea during the 1800s.