|
|
Post by gabriellerabadi on Jun 2, 2016 19:58:45 GMT
In my own opinion I believe that slavery was more about social control and the idea of economic benefit is a complete copout. From the slave's perspective, they know that it is about social control and from the slave owners perspective, they may tell themselves that it is for economic benefit but it is based off of a white hierarchy. Many slave owners during that time felt that they owned black people because they did not see them as human, but as capital or an investment. In "Corner Stone" Speech by Alexander Stephens, he states that black and white people are not equal and that is just a known fact; however, he also stated that slavery was a violation against human rights and should have been abolished over time. When there is this idea that one race is above the other a grey area is created in what is ethically acceptable.In the reading "A Changing Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia" T.H. Been also discusses the topic of hierarchy and economics and how that tied into slavery. He stated that "whites saw Negros as property to be exploited" which made me think of how many humans view animal rights. We love animals, we even have many of them as pets; we find them fascinating, we study them, even protect them but we would not say that their lives are more important than a humans. We believe on the food chain, humans are at the top and animals are below us. In times before industrialization, many humans believed that they are above animals and therefore we could use animals for labor. Using them for economic benefit was morally and ethically okay to them because their lives were not equivalent to humans, they were just simply commodities. The problem was that many people viewed the Africans as this way and if people believed that Africans were at the same level as animals, then the idea of labor is not just an economic choice but a hierarchy choice, a power play. They thought it was an ethical green light to use them for slavery because their lives were not as important as white peoples. In my opinion, the idea of social control was the main proponent of slavery and economic benefit was just an added bonus.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisdigi on Jun 2, 2016 20:00:42 GMT
Question #2
I think that slavery was both a system of social control and economic development. The original idea and/or goal behind slavery was economic development. Breen wrote " Great Virginia planters expressed disappointment with the quality of their servants regardless of the means by which they had been recruited. The owners of large tobacco plantations wanted hard-working, honest and obedient laborers" (1973). The desire to have hard-working and honest labors would suggest that the main goal of having laborers was to further economic development. But what I want to stress is that slavery turned into a system of social control in response to threats against the furtherance of said economic development. There were several uprisings among black and white fieldworkers, servants, and slaves in York and other areas in and outside of Virginia and of course Bacon's Rebellion.
This created fear among Virginians of a labor-force uprising. There was a need for control of the labor force made of both blacks and whites. There were very few major events that took place after 1700 involving poor white servants. Breen further explains how "eighteenth-century Virginia gentry feared the blacks and the policies of certain aggressive royal governors, but no one expressed apprehension about the poor whites" (1973). With this occurrence and the fact that African slaves were coming into the colonies at a faster rate than before, the plantation owners had to develop a system of social control to prevent any uprising from a now completely African slave labor force. I think this is where all of most horrible and inhumane practices of plantation owners and whites originated. They treated slaves as property and had to suppress them from viewing themselves as people with rights. It was indeed a system of social control.
|
|
|
|
Post by daotran2016 on Jun 2, 2016 22:41:39 GMT
Question 1:
The civil war did stem from the debate over the future of slavery. This argument led to secession, and this secession brought a war between the Northern, Western states - who fought to preserve the Union, and the South - who fought to preserve independence.
About 4 million Africans were slaves in the South, utilized to perform plantations and other duties. Eventhough only a small portion of the population owned slaves, slaves were traded, rented, and sold to pay debts. Ownerships of slaves represented respect and social status since they were viewed as property of individuals and businesses. In the north however, slavery was slowly becoming abolished. Since there was a steady flow of immigrants (from Ireland and Germany) during the 1840s and 1850s, that insured a steady pool or laboreres willing to be hired at low wages, thus diminishing the need for slavery institution. This small difference of interests were the initial start of the secession.
I think that the Tariff of Abominations, which was a legislation passed by the North, imposing a tax on imported goods which causes everything purchased in the South to rise its price nearly by half, was a small but important to the start of the civil war. The South was big on cotton making, shipping its cotton to England and France and in return receive European goods including clothings made by their cotton. However, eventually the North manufactured their own cotton mills, leather and harness manufactors, iron and steel mills, etc. No longer needing the South to export their cottons, the South was forced to buy products from the north at higher cost. This led to the South thinking that they are of a different identity from the North, since the South did not want to let go of the slavery-cotton tradition.
In addition to the start and growing division between the North and South, national politics which was almost entirely section divided the nation even more. Levels of anger arose, and that turned into rage, which turned into violence. In 1852, a novel by Harriet Beecher "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was published, a story about a slave's life as a relentless nightmare of sorrow and cruelty. This inflamed passion to the North while the South dismissed the story as a skewed and unfair portrayal. So in 1854, when Stephen Douglas, a Kansas-Nebraska presidential candidate permitted settlers in Kansas to have slaves, this outraged the North, which led the North to begin raising funds to send anti-slave settlers to Kansas. The Southerners were enraged at this in return, and sent their own settlers, a brutish group called Border Ruffians to Kansas and make troubles for the abolitionists. The murders and massacres piled up, eventually ended up in the newspaper as "Bleeding Kansas".
This sensation news was brought to the Supreme Court. Senator Charles Sumner, in 1856, stood out to speak against the kansas Act. 2 days later, his nephew, Preston Brook appeared beside Sumner's desk, caned nearly to death. This enraged the North and ignated them to support a new anti-slavery political party. Then in 1857 the Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that slaves were not citizen or a person, and so they were allowed to be utilized as properties. While the South was relieved, the North immediatedly started an anti-slavery camp. And then civil war happened shortly afterward. So yes, these series of slavery events were the cause of civil war.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacksharkey1234 on Jun 3, 2016 0:19:57 GMT
Southern Whites and the Slavery System.
As northern states continued to undergo rapid industrialization and saw the growth of large urban areas (NYC, PHilly, Baltimore, etc), the southern economy still relied almost entirely on agriculture. Instead of having cities and towns filled with various careers such as blacksmithing or leatherworkers, these jobs were mostly done by slaves living on the massive plantations of the south. While there were southern cities with growing industry, much of the area remained rural and populated by farmers. In the Antebellum South, the majority of whites did not actually own slaves, and the ones that did rarely had more than one or two. There were around 10,000 slaveowners that had anywhere near enough land and slaves to have something resembling a plantation. The idea of southern nobility and the aristocratic plantation culture is accurate, but it did not occur to the extent that is mostly thought to have. Most southern whites were little more than subsistence farmers living on small plots of land. As these southerns lived meager existences, the wealthy plantation class were successful into convincing them that they were within the same realm of society, and the status quo of slavery was the best thing for everyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by jacksharkey1234 on Jun 3, 2016 0:32:33 GMT
Question #2 I think that slavery was both a system of social control and economic development. The original idea and/or goal behind slavery was economic development. Breen wrote " Great Virginia planters expressed disappointment with the quality of their servants regardless of the means by which they had been recruited. The owners of large tobacco plantations wanted hard-working, honest and obedient laborers" (1973). The desire to have hard-working and honest labors would suggest that the main goal of having laborers was to further economic development. But what I want to stress is that slavery turned into a system of social control in response to threats against the furtherance of said economic development. There were several uprisings among black and white fieldworkers, servants, and slaves in York and other areas in and outside of Virginia and of course Bacon's Rebellion.
This created fear among Virginians of a labor-force uprising. There was a need for control of the labor force made of both blacks and whites. There were very few major events that took place after 1700 involving poor white servants. Breen further explains how "eighteenth-century Virginia gentry feared the blacks and the policies of certain aggressive royal governors, but no one expressed apprehension about the poor whites" (1973). With this occurrence and the fact that African slaves were coming into the colonies at a faster rate than before, the plantation owners had to develop a system of social control to prevent any uprising from a now completely African slave labor force. I think this is where all of most horrible and inhumane practices of plantation owners and whites originated. They treated slaves as property and had to suppress them from viewing themselves as people with rights. It was indeed a system of social control.
Response: I completely agree that slavery was both a means of social control as well as economic development, especially when it comes to the context of non slave owning whites in the prewar south. While there were a large number of wealthy plantation owners, they were vastly outnumbered by whites who owned 1-2 slaves, and those slaveowners were even more outnumbered by whites who did not own any slaves. With the majority of southern whites living on small plots of land, mostly in what one would consider poverty, it's interesting that they would be so vehemently opposed to abolition, as they were also being screwed over by the wealthy slaveowners. The cotton market's frequent and sometimes severe fluctuations meant that poor farmers were unable to compete with the large plantations who could stomach a drop in cotton prices.
I believe that the social control of slavery went in two directions, meant to keep blacks enslaved, as well as conning the poor whites into supporting a system which set them back. The typical white farmer most likely did not live much better than a slave on a plantation (obviously the poor white's existence was infinitely better due to not being a slave). But the plantation owners were able to convince the poor whites that they were as good as they were, simply for being white, which led to the poor white farmers being complicit in slavery at their own expense.
|
|
|
|
Post by micathcart on Jun 3, 2016 2:29:01 GMT
Question 2:
I find this question to be very intriguing, primarily because it is one I have not given much thought previous to you asking it. The question is also a very complicated one to answer (which seems to be a common occurrence in the discipline of history). The reason for the enigmatical nature of this question is the complexity that encompasses the institution of slavery in the United States. So, was slavery an institution of social control or of economic production? Inherently (and I don’t think this can be denied), slavery was a system of economic production. There would be no reason to own an individual (which included everything that would be needed to keep that individual alive) unless it provided the bonder with an economic advantage. And the lucrative cotton trade definitely adds credence to this position.
However, the complexity of reality prevents such simplistic conclusions. The popular model of American slavery is that of the late 18th and early (to mid) 19th centuries. This model of slavery is not an accurate representation of the institution of slavery in the United States. In the mid 17th century slavery was a much more complicated practice (particularly in Virginia). In the mid 1600s, the lines between the various lower classes (poor freemen, servant, or slave) were not as clear as in the mid 19th century. Also these three social classes were significantly inferior (in social order) to the elite planter classes. Socially, in the 1650s, there was littler difference between an indentured servant from Manchester and a slave from Barbados. Both were not paid (in the case of the indentured servant they were not paid for several years) and largely were exploited. This changed with the Bacon Rebellion, when various members of common Virginians (regardless of race) joined together to combat the social elites. Various reasons in the following decades caused the gradual divide between poor whites and enslaved blacks in the American South. Eventually the United States found itself in the circumstances of the mid 19th century. Poor whites in the south vehemently defended the institution of slavery because it maintained the status quo in regard to social structure. The poor whites in the Antebellum South were low on the totem pole, however they were still viewed in a more favorable light than the slaves. This gives credence to the notion that slavery is an institution of social control.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigaway on Jun 3, 2016 13:50:50 GMT
Response to Question 2: I believe that slavery was primarily a system of social control. While I see how slavery also benefitted economic production I view slavery as a system of social control first, which was then followed by a system of economic production. In the Breen article it talks about how, “After 1660 the Virginia legislature began to deprive black people of basic civil rights”. It also states how, “For the Negroes the original trip from Africa to the West Indies had been a terrible ordeal”. It later goes on to say how harsh the psychological trauma must have been for many of the Africans on board. From the very beginning the Africans were traumatized and broken down by their captors. We often hear stories of how the slave ships were overstuffed and many Africans died at sea because of how terrible the living conditions were onboard. After bringing the Africans to America they began to work as slaves and eventually were stripped of their own basic rights. Rights that many of us take for granted today. If a group of peoples’ rights were being stripped from them today, I would also look at it from the standpoint of social control. Now my answer changes a bit depending on the perspective that you are looking at it from. However, right from the start we see how the Africans are classified as “slaves” and the owner is classified as “master”. This already shows social control by having one man be more powerful and owning other men. The fact that slaves had to call a man “master” is a showing of social control that ran deep in the south. This being said, I do think that if you are a “master” who owns many slaves on a plantation, you would have an easier time explaining how it is a system of economic production over a system of social control. The argument could be made that slaves were essential to the economy in the south and without them the economy would crash. Slaves work without wage and there are an abundance of them. If all of a sudden an abundance of free labor was replaced with workers who needed a living wage, the economy would surely be different. However, I still believe that slavery was a system of social control over a system of economic production. The “giddy multitudes” in the T.H. Breen reading consisted of slaves, indentured servants, and poor freemen. The growing Virginia gentry found these multitudes to be a constant thorn in the side of their economic plans. Slaves learned to speak some English while stopped over in the West Indies; this would have helped them to plan rebellions with the other multitudes. Although the burgeoning aristocracy were not the reason for the disappearance of these multitudes, changes in economic conditions certainly helped them solidify their grip on the South. The rising price in tobacco helped to alter the social and economic conditions; poor freemen found that they could start to make a living. Indentured servants turned out to be a poor investment and changes in shipping allowed for slaves to be brought directly from Africa. Improving economic conditions may have initiated changes in the structure of slave holding society, but social control became the necessary result in order to keep this arrangement going. Slave owners used Christianity as a form of social control. Frederick Douglas certainly found this out when Master Thomas Auld and his wife practiced religious piety while being cruel to their slaves. Edward Covey was a manifestation of this hypocrisy by being both a slave breaker and a professor of religion. The slaves practiced a form of Christianity that was true to its roots. Slave holders in the south used their religious beliefs to further bolster their social control of slaves. |
|
|
|
Post by chelseaw on Jun 3, 2016 14:00:19 GMT
Question 1: The Backstory podcast focuses greatly on the fact that Lincoln could not address this issue that was at hand. The long drawn debate was that the South thought slavery was right, and Lincoln and the Republicans thought slavery was not. With that said, it is important to note that Lincoln did not have intentions of starting a war. The podcast reveals the true intentions of Lincoln and that the roots of American slavery are not directly related to the coming of the Civil War. Brian Balogh in the Backstory podcast mentioned that secessionists thought the North was going to let the South go without a war. Peter Onuf comments on that statement, by saying that Lincoln thought the secesstionists’ feelings in the South was a “kind of cancer that could be excised.” Furthermore, there were deeper issues behind slavery that related to politics and economy, such as succession, states’ rights, and which states were part of the Union. However, a war specifically over slavery was not predicted to happen. So in actuality, an event that had a major impact on the beginning of the civil war was in Fort Sumter, South Carolina. This event is considered the first battle of American Civil War. In South Carolina, the U.S. fort there ran out of food to eat. Lincoln made a decision to send food to South Carolina, and South Carolina took this as an act of aggression. As a result, a war is drawn between the North who does not want to go to war for slavery and the South who goes to war to protect it. From my understanding the civil war wasnt just based on an issue of right vs. wrong like we claim. Lincoln wasnt a abolitionist, and he didnt know what should happen to the slaves once they were free. We think of Lincoln as this great guy who freed the slaves and wanted everyboy to be equal, but we have to remember that during this time African slaves were not seen as people, much less Americans, and Lincoln felt this same way. Lincoln didnt give the emancipation speech with the sole purpose of freeing the slaves, the speech was used as a military scare tacit so the war wouldnt continue on, and the south would not succeed. |
|
|
|
Post by kylokaitlyn on Jun 3, 2016 18:44:08 GMT
In my own opinion I believe that slavery was more about social control and the idea of economic benefit is a complete copout. From the slave's perspective, they know that it is about social control and from the slave owners perspective, they may tell themselves that it is for economic benefit but it is based off of a white hierarchy. Many slave owners during that time felt that they owned black people because they did not see them as human, but as capital or an investment. In "Corner Stone" Speech by Alexander Stephens, he states that black and white people are not equal and that is just a known fact; however, he also stated that slavery was a violation against human rights and should have been abolished over time. When there is this idea that one race is above the other a grey area is created in what is ethically acceptable.In the reading "A Changing Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia" T.H. Been also discusses the topic of hierarchy and economics and how that tied into slavery. He stated that "whites saw Negros as property to be exploited" which made me think of how many humans view animal rights. We love animals, we even have many of them as pets; we find them fascinating, we study them, even protect them but we would not say that their lives are more important than a humans. We believe on the food chain, humans are at the top and animals are below us. In times before industrialization, many humans believed that they are above animals and therefore we could use animals for labor. Using them for economic benefit was morally and ethically okay to them because their lives were not equivalent to humans, they were just simply commodities. The problem was that many people viewed the Africans as this way and if people believed that Africans were at the same level as animals, then the idea of labor is not just an economic choice but a hierarchy choice, a power play. They thought it was an ethical green light to use them for slavery because their lives were not as important as white peoples. In my opinion, the idea of social control was the main proponent of slavery and economic benefit was just an added bonus. I really like how you added in how humans treat animals and the hierarchy on the food chain. It's a perspective I never considered but slave holders literally ranked their their household dogs and cats over their black slaves. It's a really disgusting idea that that is how low they were looked upon. Bringing the concept of ethics into play, I've often heard from my religious background that "dogs have no soul and free will" and that is why humans are considered to be a higher species on the food chain. But what about the slaves? In our one reading from Frederick Douglas he talks about how his one master was a new found religious man who would attend conferences, etc. I'm sure they taught the concepts of the soul and how God created man, but Douglas said his master only became more harsh. I definitely don't think too much into different perspectives because there is no denying the immense abuse that took place in these relationships, the economic production (which I believe was the core purpose) cannot sugar coat the concept of social control. |
|
|
|
Post by madison on Jun 3, 2016 22:42:25 GMT
Response to question 2 Slavery was a system of social control and a system of economic production depending on whose eyes you’re looking at it. From the slaves eyes it is a system of social control. The person enslaved knows that they are here to do work or whatever their jobs is for their owner. Based on what I have read and watch documentaries on, the slaves were no treat well at all. Instead of being taken care of, they were mistreated and not given the fundamental needs that all humans should be given. That is when the slaves will look at slavery as a system of social control and not a system of economic production. Now on the other hand, through the eyes of the owners, it was a system of economic production. They saw this a great way to make more money and to increase their production output without increasing their input. By providing the bare-necessities, they were able to maximize their production in turn making their profits much larger. From my standpoint and knowledge of the subject, slavery was both a system of social control and economic production. I agree with the first statement, that slavery was both a system of social control and a system of economic production. To be plain, the slaves had a hard life. Slaves were treated poorly, used for profit and production, and malnourished. As Breen has spoke about, slaves were seen as property, not people. The owners saw slaves as an opportunity for very cheap labor. The minimal to no food, clothing, and sleep provided owners with an opportunity to make great profit. Therefore, I believe, as well, that the owners say slavery as a system of economic control. Although, I do believe that owners saw slaves are unequal, and lesser than themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by tburckh1 on Jun 4, 2016 2:23:08 GMT
Question #3
The Civil War and the reconstruction era are still topics of debate 139 years after the fact. There are many theories on what caused the Civil War from both sides. Yet, the main theory that we all know is the issue of slavery. David Blight of Yale University said that in Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural speech that "somehow" the war was about slavery. In the second paragraph of his speech he stated that "southern part of it these slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war." Even though slavery was outlawed thanks to the Emancipation Proclamation and the United States is once again whole, Lincoln even knew then that the war wasn’t over. He was right. The war is now fought with words and actions, not with swords and guns. Blight fast forward from the Civil War to the civil rights movement in 1963 with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the famous "I Had a Dream" speech, and John F. Kennedy. During this time slavery took a different form; it was now segregation. In the first 14 minutes of the famous speech by Dr. King was remembering the Civil War and the other famous speech that outlawed slavery. Dr. King, Jr. saw that slavery and segregation was one in the same. He even went the extra mile to draw up and send Kennedy an 85-page legal document demanding a second emancipation proclamation, but this time to outlaw segregation.
The aftermath of the Civil War still resonates more today than ever. David Graham, staff writer from the Atlantic, wrote about the how the South and a few Northern states are, in a way, glorifying the south's version of the Civil War. Graham wrote about the backlash of Confederated monuments today during the Black Lives Matter movement (yes it’s a movement think about it) and how it's almost like celebrating slavery. However, due to the South Carolina massacre and the realization of glorifying slavery, the Confederate flags have come down in a few places and schools bearing Confederate generals name that is heavy populate by African-American students have since been changed. America is slowly realizing that some of the Confederate monuments maybe a little too much. Now battlefields and a few statues are harmless because its apart of our history which we need to preserve and learn from.
|
|
|
|
Post by jpetonak2 on Jun 4, 2016 2:28:57 GMT
I believe that slavery cannot be categorized as one or the other. In the South, the primary lifestyle was that of farming and agriculture. There, they need slaves to work in the field; however, the slave owners quickly changed the definition of owning slaves. It became a symbol of wealth and status – the more slaves one owned, the higher status they have in society. Here it was a system of economic production. When the North started to talk about ending slavery, the South got scared because that is all they knew. They didn’t know anything else but owning slaves and plantations. This was one reason the civil war started. The South was protective over its cultural and its lifestyle. The Northern states gave up slavery by the Declaration of Independence and they were hoping the South would do the same. However, the Southerners couldn’t leave what they had behind, which they used against the Northerners in the Civil War. This is a system of social control. My view on this doesn’t change when it comes to perspective because I took the perspective of the lifestyle in the South during the civil war. Additionally, I can see how it would be a bit of both even in the perspective of the slave and the slave owner. They needed slaves not only to work on the plantations but also to show status and wealth. Therefore, I will stick to my answer because it works in either perspective. This is a very interesting different take on the question. I have not thought about looking at it this way before. I forgot all about the social status that owning slaves came with. It was true that the more slaves you own, the wealthier you appear to be to your peers during that time in the south. I completely agree with your statements and also believe that it does work with either perspective. Great job. |
|
|
|
Post by tburckh1 on Jun 4, 2016 2:36:35 GMT
I happy that you stated that not many southerners had slaves or if they did, it was only a few. History only talks about the wealthy plantation owners owning hundreds of slaves. We rarely hear about the poor white farmers that compete with slaves if you think about it. You are also right about how the north became industrialized and the south relied on agriculture. I believe it was from last week's reading about how the northern states was looking towards the future while the south was staying in the past. It shows even today how urban the north is and how rural the south still remains. Southern Whites and the Slavery System. As northern states continued to undergo rapid industrialization and saw the growth of large urban areas (NYC, PHilly, Baltimore, etc), the southern economy still relied almost entirely on agriculture. Instead of having cities and towns filled with various careers such as blacksmithing or leatherworkers, these jobs were mostly done by slaves living on the massive plantations of the south. While there were southern cities with growing industry, much of the area remained rural and populated by farmers. In the Antebellum South, the majority of whites did not actually own slaves, and the ones that did rarely had more than one or two. There were around 10,000 slaveowners that had anywhere near enough land and slaves to have something resembling a plantation. The idea of southern nobility and the aristocratic plantation culture is accurate, but it did not occur to the extent that is mostly thought to have. Most southern whites were little more than subsistence farmers living on small plots of land. As these southerns lived meager existences, the wealthy plantation class were successful into convincing them that they were within the same realm of society, and the status quo of slavery was the best thing for everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by tylerg033 on Jun 4, 2016 9:14:47 GMT
In my own opinion I believe that slavery was more about social control and the idea of economic benefit is a complete copout. From the slave's perspective, they know that it is about social control and from the slave owners perspective, they may tell themselves that it is for economic benefit but it is based off of a white hierarchy. Many slave owners during that time felt that they owned black people because they did not see them as human, but as capital or an investment. In "Corner Stone" Speech by Alexander Stephens, he states that black and white people are not equal and that is just a known fact; however, he also stated that slavery was a violation against human rights and should have been abolished over time. When there is this idea that one race is above the other a grey area is created in what is ethically acceptable.In the reading "A Changing Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia" T.H. Been also discusses the topic of hierarchy and economics and how that tied into slavery. He stated that "whites saw Negros as property to be exploited" which made me think of how many humans view animal rights. We love animals, we even have many of them as pets; we find them fascinating, we study them, even protect them but we would not say that their lives are more important than a humans. We believe on the food chain, humans are at the top and animals are below us. In times before industrialization, many humans believed that they are above animals and therefore we could use animals for labor. Using them for economic benefit was morally and ethically okay to them because their lives were not equivalent to humans, they were just simply commodities. The problem was that many people viewed the Africans as this way and if people believed that Africans were at the same level as animals, then the idea of labor is not just an economic choice but a hierarchy choice, a power play. They thought it was an ethical green light to use them for slavery because their lives were not as important as white peoples. In my opinion, the idea of social control was the main proponent of slavery and economic benefit was just an added bonus. I really like what you wrote here in your reply to question number 2. Although I may disagree slightly with my answer to this question you really did a good job of talking about why you thought this way and it made me have to reconsider my answer. I like how you discussed what it was like for these owners to have this control over these people that some owners did not even see as human. I agree it had something to do with social control but I think there also was a a large economic benefit as well. Before I read your answer i thought it was more about the economics but after reading this I may be turned a bit to think that it was more just about social control. |
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Jun 4, 2016 14:33:28 GMT
In my own opinion I believe that slavery was more about social control and the idea of economic benefit is a complete copout. From the slave's perspective, they know that it is about social control and from the slave owners perspective, they may tell themselves that it is for economic benefit but it is based off of a white hierarchy. Many slave owners during that time felt that they owned black people because they did not see them as human, but as capital or an investment. In "Corner Stone" Speech by Alexander Stephens, he states that black and white people are not equal and that is just a known fact; however, he also stated that slavery was a violation against human rights and should have been abolished over time. When there is this idea that one race is above the other a grey area is created in what is ethically acceptable.In the reading "A Changing Labor Force and Race Relations in Virginia" T.H. Been also discusses the topic of hierarchy and economics and how that tied into slavery. He stated that "whites saw Negros as property to be exploited" which made me think of how many humans view animal rights. We love animals, we even have many of them as pets; we find them fascinating, we study them, even protect them but we would not say that their lives are more important than a humans. We believe on the food chain, humans are at the top and animals are below us. In times before industrialization, many humans believed that they are above animals and therefore we could use animals for labor. Using them for economic benefit was morally and ethically okay to them because their lives were not equivalent to humans, they were just simply commodities. The problem was that many people viewed the Africans as this way and if people believed that Africans were at the same level as animals, then the idea of labor is not just an economic choice but a hierarchy choice, a power play. They thought it was an ethical green light to use them for slavery because their lives were not as important as white peoples. In my opinion, the idea of social control was the main proponent of slavery and economic benefit was just an added bonus. I really like what you had to say about animal rights. It is true that people look at animals as below us because they cannot talk, read, write music, ask questions, etc. (The kind of higher thinking stuff that humans can do but animals can't) If the southern slave owners truly understood the difference between humans and animals then they would have seen that their slaves were human beings. A slave owner could ask his slave how he/she was doing, and they could respond with, good/bad, so on. They couldn't ask their horses, cows, chickens, or pigs that question, and get an answer back. To further complicate and show just how disgusting slave owners were believing that their slaves were animals, is rape. History shows that rape happened between some slave owners and their slaves, so if slaves are considered as animals or subhuman, then intercourse should not only be considered immoral but biologically incompatible, basically bestiality if they upheld their beliefs. This just further shows that, like you said, how problematic it was for slave owners to view their slaves as animals. It also shows the hypocrisy of slave owners. |
|
