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?
Your second point about how these men use a biological hierarchy as a justification for slavery is a particularly important one, I think. It shows very clearly how slave owners had to come up with some scheme to justify treating other humans in so abysmally. Calhoun makes a particularly obtuse argument when he tries to show a "logical" comparison between the health and condition of slaves and poor people in Europe. He supposes that slaves are better off than people living in freedom and poverty-neglecting the fact that slaves have no financial means! It is unclear why he thinks that after years of abuse and racism the slave owners will somehow see the light and give their slaves a delightful and pleasant retirement, but this seems to be the crux of that particular argument. As a politician, Calhoun of course was making a point to impress his constituents. He certainly wasn't going to win election based on the votes of slaves, so he was out to impress a white, male base, and assuring them of their racial superiority was part of the plan.
ReplyDeleteThe scattered nature of all their defenses lacks cohesion- they are grasping at straws, seeking any angle to preserve this institution. However, the one thing they all seem to agree on is white superiority. Harper makes that opinion clear in his discussion of Indian removal, and Stringfellow takes a slightly more oblique tack in saying that the Bible has given permission for slavery.
I have to agree with you that I don't feel slavery is right. There is a lot that happened in the past that I don't understand completely as to why we did it. I wonder how much is kept accurate. Like a game of telephone some of the information gets distorted when the message gets passed. I wonder if that ever happens to what we hear about history. Probably no way to ever tell for sure. In Calhoun's speech in the very first sentence he says, "Be it good or bad, it [slavery] has grown up with our society ...is so interwoven with them, that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people." That being the first line tell me that it is important and that really does sound like he didn't think it was wrong. Like they had to keep slavery going to survive. The will to live can be powerful but I think in this situation the will to live the life you think is right can be just as strong.
ReplyDeleteAlso your forth point how reading this made you think it did the same for me. I have been very blessed in my life to have a place to live and food to eat and have never had to be in the poor house so maybe it was better than not having anywhere to live. But there is no question to me that the ones who beat their slaves were not doing anything good. Just Convincing themselves otherwise.
Than in Stringfellow's document like you referenced "Jesus Christ recognized this institution [slavery] as one that was lawful among men.." I don't think anyone knows for sure if Jesus had slaves I do know that some of the worst events in history were done by people who said they were doing the lord's work and they were just twisting something they read in a way it wasn't meant.
This while subject is a very touchy one to discuss. I think like anyone else we have to make the best decisions possible with what we truly believe to be right.
We, as society, can probably agree upon the idea that the slavery is not necessity to sustaining our lives. As a proof we are doing far better nowadays than we had slaves in terms of productivity or quality of products. And secondly, we also should agree that the superior does not have right to rule over the inferior. If that idea was to be carried onto our society we will be using force to resolve who is superior then the other. It would cause an absolute chaos. As I think, it was probably their intention to keep the slavery for their own benefits, or profits, rather than thinking on the slave’s side. It was very selfish for them to describe it to be acceptable as they did in the text since the authors probably never have experienced what slaves had to go through.
ReplyDeleteI will start by saying defending slavery is bulls*hit. Now on to our regularly scheduled comment.......
ReplyDeleteJohn C Calhon seems to have had good intentions;problem was that most slaves were not treated as well as he thought they should be. What right did they have to take people and enslave and civilize them? The slaves had no choice in the matter, they had to comply or else? So what if they were taught to read and write? What good does it do you if you cannot go out and make a living and take care of your family? Be free? There were very few slaves who were given the pleasure of learning, most were beaten if they got caught with a book.
Now for William Harper, I see his point,but that does not mean I agree with it. No man has a right over another human being. Civilized or not, it does not make you a better person. However it frustrates me, because instead of banding together, the people of Africa instead choose petty wars against each other, which left them weak and open to invasion and slavery, and it still goes on today.
Last but not least Thorton Stringfellow, not much to say, his defense, in my opinion is null and void, like I said with John Calhoun, most slaves were not given this particular treatment and far too many people in the cloth twist the Bible for their own means to an end.