Southern Pre-Civil War Defense of Slavery

The South before the Civil War had many defenses for slavery, each with its own tactic and approach to the issue. There were moral explainations, religious references, and legal sources. However, of all that was written and said in the defense of slavery, the following are the key points:

The first major point was that everything in the world relies on balance and contrast; structure and tradition is necessary to balance out new ideas. While those using this argument generally acknowledged that slavery wasn't exactly pleasant for the slaves, they said it was necessary in order to balance out freedom. While this argument is not entirely correct, its point is not untrue; contrast is necessary for comprehension. If we did not know evil, then good would have no meaning, and if we did not know war, peace would be nothing special. The same applies to slavery and freedom; as horrible as it is to realize, slavery has had a positive effect on the world today. Because we know what slavery was, we have a deeper understanding and appreciation for the freedom we now know. Therefore, the point is, in a way, valid. On a logical basis, it can be considered a good argument. However, on a realistic level, it is not an argument that one can agree with. Balance is necessary, yes, but not at the cost of another's liberty.

Perhaps the best argument cited history. All across history, success began with slavery. Leading cities were built by slave, leading minds owned slaves; it was through the labor of slaves that the great thinkers had time to do their thinking and the great leaders had time to do their leading. Arguers for this point said that whatever your view on slavery itself, it had always proven to be an "engine of good," so to speak. Without slaves to do the manual work, there would be no one free to plan success, meaning that slavery was simply the path to success. Citation of historical cities and events to prove this argument made it particularly convincing, so much so that it is hard to say whether any of us would have gone unconvinced by a lecture to that effect.

Another true but ineffective argument stated that change takes time, and that when the world is ready for said change, it will occur. The problem with this argument is that it is only inspiring; change will take time, but that does not mean it can not be reached, and if time was what it would take, then the sooner begun the sooner achieved. Without effort on the part of the people, the world would never truly be ready, and so the People did what it took to make the world ready for the abolition of slavery. It could be said that this is the least effective argument, as it only hurries the actions to be taken; the longer something will take, the better to start early.

One very effective argument -- though not necessarily very true -- involved the citation of biblical quotes. Scattered all throughout the bible are verses demanding the obedience of slaves, or else descriptions of circumstances in which slaves were involved. Defenders of slaver would often choose the quote most likely to suit their cause, and as religion is so heart-felt yet confusing, it was effective in causing a double-take, at the very least. However, to combat these arguments were biblical quotes found that could be used against slavery; the Bible is so detailed and in-depth that a quote can be found for almost any side of almost any argument; without the full context, there is nothing to tell listeners what one phrase is intended to mean. This made it a good argument if only slavery enthusiasts were speaking, but with the arrival of abolitionists came the arrival of a whole new batch of verses.

Biblical verses were not the only things that the South picked and chose their favorite points from; John Locke's theories were equally picked through. Taking what was in their favor and leaving the rest behind, supporters of slavery would describe "natural rights"...but with a different twist. They said that everyone is born with natural rights, but that not everyone is born with the same natural rights. Through the twisting of Locke's theories, slavery defenders were able to proclaim that the real order of the world is not so much natural equality as it is natural rank. This argument is unimpressive; however, with quotes from highly-respected scholars such as Locke mingling through it, it could easily have fooled listeners.

Perhaps the worst argument, however, was the Property argument. Those defending themselves with this argument generally acknowledged slavery as wrong; however, they said it was too late to be changed. Now that slaves were property, there was no fair way to take them away. The means may not have been good, but fixing the means may be worse. This argument is least convincing because it is so purely greedy; to declare a human being to be nothing but property, and acknowledge the treatement of said being as unfair yet go with it for one's own profit, is hardly convincing as being just. Justice should not be so reliant on wealth.

One of the more convincing arguments is the defense of slavery as a "necessary evil." These followers had a tendency to truly wish that slavery were nonexistant, but also lacked a knowledge of how to fix it. People such as Charles Jones truly and sincerely wished to perfect slavery, to question deeply their own treatement of slaves. Though they saw slavery as wrong, they also saw freeing slaves as impractical both for the slave and the owner. Was freedom really what was best for a slave at that point in time? Likely not; the world wasn't ready for such a sudden transition. As previous arguments said, change requires time. It is this honesty and acknowledgement that makes this argument the most convincing of them all; it has a true desire to fix what's wrong. It is simply accompanied by the unfortunate absence of possibilities for mending the situation.

The most insulting argument stated that negros were like big children; they needed slave owners to raise them, to teach them...to train them. This is an immensly unconvincing argument, as there were many blacks like Fredrick Douglas who were living proof of the intelligence of slaves. Sadly, the whites were so desperate for reassurance that they were right that many of them were willing to believe anything that would leave them right.

The final argument was a Utopian dream. Defenders of this argument said that slavery existed to give whates an opportunity to do good; blacks were an opportunity for slave owners to be "fair" and "just". This argument is similar to the argument of contrast, but unconvincing; we do not say that just because someone is an opportunity to do good means we shouldn't completely heal them; few would look at someone homeless or hurt and say to themselves "This man needs help. What a wonderful opportunity to do good! However, I'd better not fully cure them because if I do there will be no one left to help." This ought not to have been the case with slavery, either. When given an opportunity to do good, one should take that opportunity to the very fullest.