Defending Slavery

1. There is not one author, but three authors in this document arguing the same idea similarly. Calhoun, Harper, and Stringfellow all three agree on the idea that slavery should not be abolished and it is necessary in this life.
2. Reverand Thornton Stringfellow uses Jesus Christ as the main principle of his argument saying that Jesus himself has not yet came out and command that slavery needs to be abolished, while John Calhoun compares slaves to men and women in poor houses. Calhoun feels that slaves have it better off than living in conditions of a poor house. William Harper feels that it is exactly in "the order of nature" that masters have slaves. He compares masters and slaves to the different kingdoms of animals who prey on each other. These three individuals all share the same feeling that slavery is something that naturally happens and is okay.
3. These arguments and documents are significant to our knowledge of past history because we are learning (if you agree with this document) that slavery was in a way, a good thing, or "necessary" as a lot of people felt back in the day. Slavery was one of the largest controversies so long ago and still, today, it is a main discussion topic in classrooms around the world. Arguments for and against abolishing slavery help us as individuals decide whether we would have done the same thing, why slavery was needed, how slaves and masters felt, along with many other questions.
4. I do not like the idea of slavery at all. When I think of slavery, the first thing I think about is that I would not want to be in a slaves shoes. But reading these documents and considering these mens' points of views make me reconsider that maybe slavery was a good thing, to a point. If masters used their slaves with good intentions then I have no problem, but when you start to hear stories about cruel slave owners who beat, killed, tortured their slaves for no good reason makes me sick. The very last part of this document is what changed my mind. "Masters give unto your servants that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a master in heaven." That is a powerful sentence because it is the truth. For the masters back then who did the most horrible things imagineable to their slaves would NOT want that to happen to them, right? Did they consider that they have a more powerful figure than them watching their every move (god)? Masters should be equal to their slaves knowing that they would want their master to do the same to them.

Surprisingly we learn that there were whites in the South who defended slavery. With that though, they still did believe that slavery was "just, necessary, and godly." Knowing more and more about slavery during the 1800s, it is our personal decision whether we feel slavery was useful or wrongful. Also, I find it interesting that the bible actually states duties for both masters and slaves. Not only were masters supposed to act in a certain way to their slaves, but slaves were expected to fill certain duties as well. Calhoun, Harper, and Stringfellow all agree that every man was born equal, but still, slaves were needed and necessary to life in the 1800s. How can every man be equal, yet there is a division that separates levels of hierarchy such as masters and slaves?

How often were slaves whipped?

This article helps the reader to understand how often slaves were beaten and how bad the beatings were. Slaves were mainly whipped for poor labor production, if they weren't considered to be fast enough by their masters. There were other types of punishments other than whipping like putting slaves' heads under water, or humiliating them by making them wear women's clothing, but the most used form of punishment was the whip. This article focuses on events that happened specifically on the Barrow plantation; how he ran his place and about his diary of whippings. Barrow truly felt he was not being cruel just trying to get his slaves to work to what he felt was their full potential.

Questions on the reading:
1. Do you feel that whippings made the slaves work harder? It seems like the obvious answer would be yes, but Barrow seems to think that they never worked up to their full potential.

2. What other methods of punishment could have been used back in the 1840s that the general population today wouldn't consider cruel?