Slavery Abolitionist vs. Fire Eaters

Slavery Abolitionist vs. Fire Eaters The issue of slavery has been hotly debated, with many fire eaters (pro slavery secessionists) arguing that this is an economic and legal issue that is a part of Southern culture / traditions. As they feel that many Northerners are hypocritical of Southern slave owners, who are seeking to maximize their profits as much as possible. To fully understand the pro-slavery prospective, we must examine these different views, by looking at a number of sources. Abolition of Slavery Notes. Wide Open West, n.d. Web. 21 Sept.

2010 The first source, the Abolition and Slavery Notes, highlights how Southern slave owners give their slaves: food, shelter, clothes and they can openly practice Christianity. When you compare this to Northern factory owners, they provide their workers with nothing more than low wages. In many ways, one could argue that slavery is moral in comparison with abolishing it, as a social support structure is in place for many slaves.

At which point, they do not have to endure the same kinds of hardships as those who are "freemen" that are working for set amount of wages. 2. Reidy, Joseph, "Introduction." From Slavery to Agrarian Capitalism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 6 -7. Print. To corroborate these various facts, Reidy discusses how many slave owners would often compare their lives with that of: wealthy business owners, entrepreneurs and politicians in the North. Who would claim, that they are following a similar kinds of divisions on an economic level.

Where, they point out that within Northern society, this group would form the elite class of social aristocrats. The different immigrants that they would have working for them; would fall in the same kind of category as slavery on economic level. With these people being viewed and treated differently in society. This is because civilization is based off of property rights. These rights apply in one way or another, in all civilized societies.

Therefore, to deny the basic social relationship that exists is hypocritical, as this fundamental structure will continue no matter what. 3. Axelrod, Alan. "A Nation in Chains." The Complete Idiots Guide to American History. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books. 140 -- 141. Print. At the same time, slavery has become a necessity that is important to the economic well being of the Southern States.

The source from Alexrod, highlights how this would establish the development of cotton as the major export for the South, by discussing how the cotton gin would revolutionize the way this product would be sold. This is because the economy of the South was mainly based upon agricultural production. After the development of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney, this would become the major export for the region. As this commodity, would be sold throughout markets in: Europe and the Northern states, to make a variety of goods.

As a result, this information shows the underlying hypocritical nature of the abolitionists. With their own factories using the cotton produced by Southern states, to create a variety of products. 4. Norton, Mary. "The Distinctive South." A People and A Nation. Princeton, NJ: Recording for the Blind. 254. Print. To correlate these findings, the source from Norton discusses how the South was very agricultural.

As the major cities, were often located near the coasts or regional rail centers, to ship various agricultural goods and those products that are manufactured by small businesses elsewhere. This information is important, because it shows how Northerners did not fully understand the way that they indirectly supported slavery.

Where, the various raw material produced by slaves, would be used to help benefit the citizens in these areas and the country as whole (by increasing trade).Those who are claiming that slavery should be abolished, are showing their lack of understanding surrounding the various issues of economics. As a result, one could argue that this hypocritical nature is why the Southern states should be their own country. Where, they would be treated by their counterparts in the North, on an equal basis as businessmen vs. oppressors that must stopped. 5.

Garber, Mark. "From Constitutional Law to Constitution Politics." Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 86. Print. The source from Garber, discusses the legal impact of slavery from the beginning. Where, it talks about how in the Constitution there are various clauses and principals that protect the right of slave owners. At the same time, it is acknowledging the institution of slavery as legal (through the establishment of counting slaves, as less than one person for the census in the Constitution).

From a fire eaters' perspective, this shows how within the Constitution, it is acknowledging that slavery is legal and should continue to exist. Where, the Constitution has supremacy, to any other laws that are passed by Congress or the states. 6. Kommers, Don. "The Judicial Power." American Constitutional Law. Lanham: Rowen and Littlefield. 87 -- 89. Print. To correlate the different views of legality, the source from Kommers outlines, how Dred Scotts' master was constantly transferred in between: slave and free states.

This is because he was an officer in the United States Army and was always moving around. When they moved to different free states such as: Wisconsin, Minnesota or Illinois, it was assumed that Scott could no longer be required to remain in slavery. Consequently, Scott challenged.