Town Hall Review: A Look Over The Countries Divide On Slavery

Last week one of my classes held a mock town hall meeting to represent the thoughts of pro-slavey and anti-slavery supporters in 18th century America.  As each student spoke in place of their historical figure, we found many intense arguments on both sides.

The argument for the pro-slavery side remained pretty consistent.  Most, if not all arguments came from white men in the southern states.  These men were against the termination of slavery as it would drastically change their economics.  Notables like William Harper and my assigned person John C. Calhoun were vocal on how the elimination of slavery would not only affect the South financially but the whole country as well.

Other pro-slavery supporters also argued the moral side of slavery.  Again, John C. Calhoun spoke up on this topic by professing all blacks should be just as grateful for slavery as whites.  He felt that it was the best living conditions and stable environment any person of color had been in.  He also felt that blacks were an inferior race to whites and had no ability to fend for themselves and adjust to society. In his mind, this was to be seen as a good thing for our country, not a bad thing.

On the contrary, there were many that originally supported slavery but changed their views over time.  One of these people was Benjamin Franklin.  Franklin had owned two slaves at one time and shared the belief of Calhoun that blacks were inferior and not able to be educated.  However, once Ben observed the opposite happen, he flipped his whole stance on the matter.

Franklin would go on to be a major supporter for the abolishment of slavery.  One quote from our town hall was, “Slavery is theft, the robbery of a person’s life, those that disagree don’t deserve freedom.”

Another person similar to Franklin was Thomas Jefferson.  Though Jefferson didn’t directly rebuke slavery, he did see it as somewhat wrong and in need of a moral change.  Instead of harsh punishment and dreadful working conditions, Jefferson attempted to make slave work more manageable.  He offered better incentives, easier crops, and overall better working time. 

Of course, with any argument, one group will be on the completely opposite viewpoint.  In this case, the abolitionists or anti-slavery groups were completely against those that were pro-slavery. 

These groups unanimously argued that the act of slavery was completely inhumane and should be put to an end.  Some, like Henry Clay, felt it should be phased out based on an economic standpoint, while others like John Brown became violent in his call for immediate action.

The anti-slavery activist wrote books, published newspapers, and even began to join the underground railroad to fight against slavery.  Many even began to have bounties on their heads from angry southerners that wanted their voices stopped.  With all of this anger and division, it became obvious destruction was on its way.  The major issue of slavery, among other things, would rock the country so greatly that it would completely divide itself. 

***

Check out my previous blog on John C. Calhoun! 

https://noahtlewis.blogspot.com/2020/09/john-c-calhoun-southern-leader-of-moral.html

John C. Calhoun: The Southern Leader of Moral, Political, & Spiritual Separatism

In the history of the Antebellum South, one man is remembered more than most for his stance on slavery.  That man is none other than John C. Calhoun.  Growing up on a South Carolina farming plantation during a boom in the cotton economy, Calhoun witnessed first hand how essential slaves were to southern living.  His father was a successful farmer that also served in public office.  After graduating, Calhoun went to Yale College and began to find his voice.  He was so insistent on his beliefs that he wouldn't go unheard.  For this reason, he followed in his father's footsteps and ran for the House of Representatives in 1810.  This would only be the first stepping stone in a long political career fighting for southern rights. 

Following his run with the House, Calhoun was made Secretary of War under President James Monroe.  It was in that time that Calhoun decided he would run for the presidential position himself in the 1824 election.  Although he didn't get the nomination for President, he did win the Vice President nomination by a landslide.  In this role, he worked alongside John Quincy Adams, but the two did not see eye-to-eye as Adams supported high tariffs and centralization.  For this reason, Calhoun reluctantly supported Andrew Jackson in the following election.  However, Calhoun still didn't see eye-to-eye with his commander-in-chief so he resigned as Vice President to serve in the U.S. Senate.  

With his platform in the Senate, Calhoun's beliefs were better heard.  He made his position on high tariffs and nullification clear and angered President Jackson.  Jackson once even threatened to travel to South Carolina and personally hang Calhoun for his "treasonous behavior".  The bad blood between the two never seemed to simmer. 

Going forward, Calhoun would continue to make his argument for slavery.  He laid grown rules for the south that suggested they could and would refuse government limitations of slavery.  Although Calhoun didn't push for succession, he made it clear that it was an option.  In fact, he once said that if abolitionist bias didn't end then ‘we must become, finally, two peoples…. Abolition and the Union cannot co-exist.’ 

As abolitionist tension continued, Calhoun led a shift in the South's defense of slavery.  He classified slavery as a "great good" that benefited all involved.  "Never before has the black race…from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually,’ he argued in Congress. ‘It came to us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions."

With the help of census reportings, Calhoun added: "look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house’ in Europe and the North."  

As we know, Calhoun would end up on the wrong side of the stick following his death.  In contradiction to his thoughts, slavery would come to an end and the South would survive it.  We also see that many African Americans have and will continue to achieve great excellence in our country, something Calhoun said could never be done in the black race.  Because of his racist and crude viewpoints, his name will always go down in history as one with negative connotation.  However, his impact will always be apparent. 

Important Sources: 

https://www.historynet.com/john-c-calhoun-the-man-who-started-the-civil-war.htm

https://www.history.com/topics/us-politics/john-c-calhoun

Research: Christian Religion & Slavery

 

Religion is humanity's most powerful mental creation. Throughout history, it has been used to define, justify, and defend actions. The institution of slavery is undoubtedly among this list, being highlighted on multiple occasions in religious text.

How Religion Condones Slavery (Alex Rucker): 

In early America, Christian slaveholders would constantly remind their slaves of a specific verse in the Bible. It comes from one of Apostle Paul's epistle, Ephesians 6:5-7, which briefly states that slaves should be obedient to their masters, as unto Christ. In the church, this verse would be given the spotlight for masters to convince their property that what they were doing was justified and in accordance with the Lord.

A more critical argument to why slavery was justified in the Bible, lies in Jesus Christ himself. Through the entire text Jesus remains silent on the issue, and never specifically calls it a sin. Slaveholders in the south would use this evidence to make claims that Jesus had no issue with the institution, saying that the Word did not spell out what was right or wrong.

According to a study in 1835 by the Charleston Mercury, the slaveholding institution cannot be considered anti-Christian. In the old testament, God and the Patriarchs approve, giving slave owners the right to have human property. They believed however that if they gave their slaves an outlet to Christ, then they would be freed from their savage like ways.

Through the lens of religion, slaveholding can definitely be defended. When it comes to the Bible it is evident to see that slavery is never outlawed outright. Because of this one can make a solid argument that Christianity has condoned slavery even though it barely speaks on it.

How Religion Condemns Slavery (Noah Lewis):

The issue of slavery as we know it was not supported by Christianity in the Bible.  While the Bible makes reference to slavery, many don’t take into consideration how slaves were treated at that time. In fact, the process of obtaining slaves was vastly different.  Many slaves in Biblical times chose serving to erase debt.  If they vowed six years of service, they would then have the option to leave a master debt-free.  A number of slaves even chose to remain with their masters following the six-year period.  Both biblical and general limitations were put in place to assure harsh practices were not used.

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he shall serve six years; and in the seventh, he shall go out free and pay nothing. If he comes in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master has given him a wife, and she has borne him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her masters, and he shall go out by himself. But if the servant plainly says, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free, then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever. (Exodus 21:26)”

These limitations prove that Christianity does not condone slavery, but acknowledges its biblical time existence and offers guidance and regulation for its practice.  If the Christian faith condoned this practice, it would not directly mandate limitations in the procedure. This is similar to modern-day laws. They aren’t made to limit good things, they’re made to assure the bad things aren’t overlooked.

If you’re still on the fence after those pieces of scripture, take a look at these:

“Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1)”

“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)”

These examples prove that the Bible would never condone the modern time's racial-based slavery we had in America.  Those that claimed religion did justify their practices were in direct violation of what is stated.  We know that America’s slaves were not treated with any sort of fairness.  We also know that these slaves were kidnapped and purchased without any sort of consent or willingness to serve.  As the Bible says, those with that practice “shall surely be put to death.”

So, Condone or Condemn? 

After reviewing our research, a valid argument could be made on both sides of the stance.  While the act of slavery was much different in Biblical times, it did still exist and was practiced.  However, with the overwhelming amount of Christians at the forefront of anti-slavery movements, is it fair to continue to classify Christianity as possibly racist?  That's for you to decide. 

https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/3535 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-bible-was-used-to-justify-slavery-then-africans-made-it-their-path-to-freedom/2019/04/29/34699e8e-6512-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html 

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-the-bible-support-slavery/