Pro Slavery in the antebellum period

Proslavery arguments were the justifications proslavery propagators used to justify the institution of slavery. The period that saw the rise of these arguments was the 1830s through to the 1860s as the abolitionist movement gained ground and made their concerns more visible to the nation. This essay examines the theories proslavery propagators used to justify the institution of slavery and also slaves' view of the practice. All factors considered, the South's position on slavery was mainly for self-preservation and to protect their economic interests that were mainly supported by slave labor.

Slavery Theories

Proslavery theorists were champions of a contemporary, class-sensitive American antebellum society. Their view was that having landless poor people in the community was one of the reasons leading to societal failure. A population of landless poor, they argued, could very easily fall prey to manipulation and this meant an unstable society. Thus, they saw that the biggest threat posed to stability and democracy was a rise of landless poor as this could cause class warfare. [footnoteRef:1] [1: ibid]

"Mudsill theory" supposed that there has to be a lower class upon which the upper class rests. One wealthy plantation owner in the south, James Henry Hammond, used the theory to explain his position on theory justifying it by saying that the slaves willingness to do menial work allowed higher classes help advance civilization. Thus, race or class equality efforts would hinder the advancement of civilization. [footnoteRef:2] [2: ibid]

Proslavery theorists in the South argued that the existence of slavery ensured that there were no attempts at race equality or class equality and also ensured that the landless poor were not engaged in the political process. Their lack of participation in the political process would ensure that those who were the most likely to undermine the process or threaten democracy were kept aloof from the processes. Their mindset was that slavery was good as it protected the interests of all parties -- the society, the masters, and even the slaves. [footnoteRef:3] [3: ibid]

Positive Good

John C. Calhoun gave a speech in 1837 to the Senate arguing for the "positive good" school of thought on slavery and stated that slavery was not evil but good. Their argument was that the nature of slavery and its ability to ensure the status quo in social class made society more stable. [footnoteRef:4] [4: ibid]

The arguments asserted the propertied elite's rights against perceived threats arising from the abolitionist movement, non-whites, and lower classes who wanted to raise the standards of living. John C. Calhoun together with various pre-Civil War Democrats saw slavery abolition as a threat to the Southern Market which had become powerful. It was a market dependent on plantation system that was run primarily using slave labor. [footnoteRef:5] [5: ibid]

William Joseph Harper made several racial, economic, and philosophical arguments for slavery, but his main contention was that slavery anticipates civilization's benefits and retards civilization's evils. His assessment of various around the world supported his line of argument. He pointed out those civilizations that did not have slaves, such as the Great Britain was heavily divided by political radicalism and inequality, whereas, States in the south like Cuba, Brazil and the United States that still practiced slavery were making good progress. [footnoteRef:6] [6: ibid]

Supporting Slavery

Defenders of slavery argued that ending slavery would grossly impact local economy in the South where most of the economic activities were supported by slave labor. The tobacco, rice, and cotton economies were seen as some of the areas that would face imminent death with the abolition of slavery. [footnoteRef:7] [7: "The Southern Argument for Slavery." 2008. Accessed October 12, 2016. http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp]

Other defenders argued that it was the nature of humanity to have slaves as centuries-old practices evidenced. The Romans, Greeks and even the English had slaves. They also used the Bible's Abraham having slaves to support their argument. They pointed to the Ten Commandments stating that one should not covet his neighbor's manservant or maidservant. They also pointed out that even though slavery existed during Jesus era, he did not speak out against it. [footnoteRef:8] The slavery defenders made the argument that slavery was divine as it introduced Christianity to the heathen from the lands beyond the ocean. According to them, it was an excellent thing for one to be enslaved. John C. Calhoum stated that slavery had civilized the people of Central Africa and improved their condition like never before. [footnoteRef:9] [8: ibid] [9: ibid]

Professor Thomas Dew argued that it was a way to organize and control labor. He also argued that it was far better than the free wage-worker system. Slavery proponents also said that slaves in the South were supported from birth till death and were fed, clothed and housed by the master. The master also took care of the old and disabled slaves who were not productive. [footnoteRef:10] [10: Conlin, Joseph R. American past, 1877: a survey of American history. ([S.l.]: Wadsworth, 2009) p.308]

The Opposing view

When looking at the arguments made by proslavery advocates, it is crucial that the position and views of slaves are also considered. Their views can be gotten from direct messages they sent or from autobiographies they wrote. Cases exist where masters starved slaves. Some masters even shot their slaves dead. This was very unfortunate. A child narrated how he witnessed his father shot by the master. [footnoteRef:11] [11: Wheeler, William Bruce, and Susan, Becker. Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence, (Volume I: To 1877. Cengage Learning, 2016) p.243-245]

The masters would whip their slaves when they erred. The whippings were often aimed at securing their humble and unquestioned submission. In some instances, a slave was forced to whip another slave. Wives and husbands or parents and children could be made to whip one another. Some masters were so cruel they even whipped the small children of the slaves. The situation was very gross as the slaves did not have any formal channels to seek redress. [footnoteRef:12] [12: ibid, 258]

Slaves' freedom of worship was not respected since 'niggers' were not allowed in churches. Preachers would come to their quarters and preach to them. Often times, the preachers only talked about obedience to masters and the need to follow orders absolutely. On the occasion that a slave preached, he only talked about what he or she had been instructed by the master as they were mostly illiterate. Preachers would compare the slaves to animals such as hogs and dogs and mentioned that they ceased to exist after death. [footnoteRef:13] [13: ibid, 244-246]

The families of the slaves were often broken up as children and their parents were separated. Even toddlers could be separated from their mothers and given to other women in different plantations to raise them. The separation would lead to distressing times for families. It was more like a grieving period for the families as they lost family members. [footnoteRef:14] [14: ibid, 246]

Slaves were not allowed to acquire any knowledge and they weren't allowed to study. Being seen reading or studying would earn one punishment. No master wanted a slave who was smarter than they were. The slaves learnt to read and study in the secrecy of the night. Most of the slaves were illiterate and never learnt to read or write for their entire life. They could not enjoy the many benefits that came with having a good education. [footnoteRef:15] [15: ibid, 245]

Conclusion

Proslavery arguments stated that slavery ensured a stable state; that with the absence of the landless poor, that slaves benefited from slavery as their masters clothed, fed and sheltered them, that slavery helped in the civilization of the black Africans and that there had always been a lower class that the upper classes rested upon throughout history. Slaves, on the other hand, saw the practice as barbaric as they were denied several basic rights like the right to knowledge and worship. They were also physically abused and their abusers could not be punished as they lacked formal channels for redress. While proslavery arguments had some truths in them, they were only justifications of a system that allowed the proslavery propagators gain economically off the back of slaves. The position and arguments to slavery being a 'positive good' were mainly rooted in the financial benefits the institution brought to masters. [footnoteRef:16] The South's plantation economy was supported almost entirely by slaver and an abolition of slave labor would mean an end to free and reliable labor. Their arguments that slavery was good were mostly for self-preservation. [16: "Slavery: A Southern Mindset." 2015. Accessed October 12, 2016. https://ctlsites.uga.edu/hist2111-wolf2015/2015/11/30/slavery-a-southern-mindset/]

Bibliography

"Slavery: A Southern Mindset." 2015. Accessed October 12, 2016. https://ctlsites.uga.edu/hist2111-wolf2015/2015/11/30/slavery-a-southern-mindset/.

"The Proslavery Argument." 2016. Accessed October 12, 2016. https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/slavery-in-the-antebellum-u-s-1820-1840-16/the-antebellum-south-121/the-proslavery-argument-647-9459/.

"The Southern Argument for Slavery." 2008. Accessed October 12, 2016. http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp.

Conlin, Joseph R. American past, 1877: a survey of American history. [S.l.]: Wadsworth, 2009.

Wheeler, William Bruce, and Susan, Becker. Discovering the American Past: A Look at the Evidence, Volume I: To 1877. Cengage Learning, 2016.