1. Post a comment to the following: the people in the South claimed slaves were essential for their economy. Based on your reading and the video we watched. Do you believe that slavery should have been allowed in our country during the early part of the 1800's?
Slaves were not essential to the economy. Farming in the 1800’s brought millions of dollars into the hands of wealthy slave owners. They clearly could afford to pay laborers and servants for their duties and treat them respectfully. If they had paid their laborers, it would have spread out the wealth, which could only aid the economy. Having wealth in the hands of a small percentage of people gives those people too much power, as they control the economy. The act of spreading wealth allows for the discovery and enhancements of new markets, which could only lead to a boom of industrialism in the new nation. The South did not need slaves; it was merely a convenience, which is why slavery should not have been allowed in the country in the early 1800’s.
ReplyDeleteEven if some form of workers were necessary, the huge amounts of profit that the owners got could have been used to develop more machinery and technology if they really strived for effectiveness of their plantations. This provides another reason to believe that there was no reason that slaves would even be necessary at all in the US.
DeleteI like that you brought up the idea of spreading out the wealth. It would certainly benefit the economy while being morally sound. It would also create a larger population of consumers for american goods, because the workers would have money to buy their own food or crops or even small luxuries, not just the necessities for survival that the owners provided them.
DeleteI agree and think your concept of monopolization of the economy through slavery is very interesting. It implies that by using slavery, slave owners controlled all the money and that while it helped a few people, slavery may have hurt the southern economy. I wonder if those people would have been able to set up such large business with paid workers. But this also may have pushed them to modernize their methods, which would again have aided the south.
DeleteAlthough the idea of spreading wealth is a very appealing one, I think that having plantation owners suddenly start paying slaves would have been an unrealistic plan. With this plan, if plantation owners were to maintain the prices they were selling products at then they would have to either pay slaves with their private wealth or give up their comfortable lifestyle. Both of these options seem too unrealistic to me. The only other alternative I see is having them raise the price of products which I see as severely hurting the economy. Even though I think slavery is terrible I can not imagine that abruptly abolishing it would end well.
DeleteI believe that slavery should not have been allowed in our country during the early part of the 1800's not only because it was morally wrong to treat people with such disrespect, but also the slaves were just more people to do the same work the white men and women were extremely capable of doing. In the movie from class, it was extremely prevalent that the plantation owners were in the upper class and were not short of money. Although they were making most of their money from the work the slaves were doing, they could have given the same work to people within the country already but with pay. If the plantation owners were paying extreme amounts of money for the slaves anyway, what difference would it make to use that money towards a salary for people already living within the country. Also, looking at the way the North was able to develop without the use of slaves shows that the slaves really were not essential to the growth and the economy in the 1800s it was just more convenient for the slave owners.
ReplyDeleteI really like your point that the price of the slaves could also just be used in salary of real workers. This would also benefit the economy of the US, thereby making having slaves a worse option in that aspect as well as the huge moral problem.
DeleteI completely agree that slavery was mostly convenient for slave owners and that everyone was capable of doing the same work. This shows that slave owners did not care about morals but only about their own money. The slave owners were selfish by doing this because they though of themselves and not of the overall economy or government.
DeleteMargaret, I agree with you that slaves were a convenience and luxery used by the wealthy in America, and that slavery was not essential to the economy. I think that the slave owner's priority of money over the morally correct thing shows something about our country as it was young. It shows the principles that America was grown off of, that money was more important than human rights, which can also be seen in how the Constitution was written.
DeleteIn the early 1800’s slavery should have been allowed in order to keep the county unified. The Southern states would do anything to keep slavery legal. In John Adams “Reflections of the Missouri Question“ he stated “I had some conversation with Calhoun on the slave question pending in Congress. He said he did not think it would produce a dissolution of the Union, but, if it should, the South would be from necessity compelled to form an alliance, offensive and defensive, with Great Britain. I said that would be returning to the colonial state. He said, yes, pretty much, but it would be forced upon them.” The United States at this time was a new nation struggling with debt and constructing a government. If congress tried to abolish slavery at this point in time, the southern alliance with Britain would have been able to defeat the currently weak government and separate the United States. Since the South was willing to resort back to Great Britain in order to protect slavery, slavery should have been legal in order to unify the country until it became more stable and powerful.
ReplyDeleteYour point was great because it showed how slavery benefitted the North as well as the South. Maintaining unity was one of the most important duties of America at the time. Although it was morally wrong, Slavery did have some benefits because it helped the country keep the government together and therefore maintain unity.
DeleteAnna, I think you bring up an interesting point. I agree that slavery was in fact very beneficial to America's economy as a whole. While slavery was a cruel and dehumanizing practice, it kept the United States together. However, what if there were alternatives to slavery?
DeleteI disagree I think that slavery did not keep the union together but set it up to fall apart. From the beggining there was a conflict between the north and south with slavery. When they kept slavery in the constitution allowed tensions to rise and split apart the union.
DeleteI really like how you approached the issue on a practical side, and I think you really made an important point in that they had to keep slavery legal in order to preserve the Union. Even though slavery was so immoral and was not really necessary for the economy, the US was not even fifty years old at this point, and the divide between the slave states and the free states threatened to tear the union in half, so they had to wait until the country was equipped to deal with such a change.
DeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in our country during the early part of the 1800s. For southern farmers, slavery was beneficial to their business but that does not prove that slavery was essential to the economy. If the slaves had been paid workers, the slave owners would make a little less money but they would still be wealthy. The overall economy may not prosper as much but it would still be successful and not collapse.
ReplyDeleteSlavery was an easy way for people to make money but it violated the slave’s rights and went against the Constitution. Although the economy is important to America, people’s rights are more significant. Slavery should not have been allowed because it went against the principles that America fought for in the Revolutionary War and founded the new country on.
I like that you brought up the idea of slavery only being beneficial to Southern farmers. It is another example of self-interest versus principle. The farmers were only upset, as you mentioned, because they would be losing money if slavery was abolished. It makes me wonder if slavery had directly affected the North's economy and daily life, if they would have been as opposed to it.
DeleteI agree with you point on how slavery benefitted the economy but was not essential. The plantation owners were using the slaves to keep themselves excessively wealthy rather than put the money towards the economy.
DeleteYou have a good point. If slavery were illegal then the Africans would have to be employed by the plantations, and they would have paid them as much as it would have cost to buy there food and shelter. If they would just have carried this price then on to the consumer and have raised the price of cotton. Slavery was not essential to the southern economy.
DeleteI completely agree with this. I think that the role which the slaves played on the plantations was definitely essential to the economy, but that did not justify them to treat the slaves so brutally.I also think that if the slaves had been replaced with paid work, the economy would have been even more successful because if the workers were paid and working willingly, the plantation owners could focus on figuring out how to make the farms more efficient and developing new technologies, instead of having to focus on "breaking" the slaves like they did in "Roots."
DeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in our country during the early part of the 1800’s. The South claimed that slaves were necessary for their economy. However, the North developed industry after previously abolishing slaves. They were able to prosper this way, with all free men in their states. In Exploring American Histories it explains, “The richest men in the South invested in slaves, land, and household goods, with little left to develop industry, technology, or urban institutions” (pg. 249). The money that was being put towards slaves could have been used in development of other options, to follow in the footsteps of the North. Industry and technology for planting and harvesting could have allowed the South to continue to prosper while still adhering to morality and allowing freedom to all people in the United States.
ReplyDeleteI think you make a very strong point here when discussing how the South could have followed the manufacturing route like the North. They could have invested in industry rather then slaves to push themselves along economically and morally.
DeleteNo, I believe that slavery should not have been allowed for the early part of 1800. Southerners stuck to the belief that slaves were essential to the economy. However, the economy could have survived if the same work was performed with paid hands. As seen in the video of “Roots”, white children asked their father for material things, slave children had hoped there was food. The planters were using slaves to maintain a state similar to aristocracy. Also, the North had been able to adapt to manufacturing. There was nothing preventing the South from doing the same. Therefore, slavery should not have been allowed because the southerners were only using it to their advantage.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about the slave owners wanting to create an aristocracy, is very interesting. In this new country, no titles of nobility could be formally granted, so maybe this was the Southern States' way of establishing control and superiority.They did not agree with the power of the central government, so maybe slavery mimicking aristocracy was their way of rebelling.
DeleteI agree that the southerners were using slavery to their advantage. You also bring up a great point that southern slave owners had become aristocrats.
DeleteI agree with your idea that the slaves made the plantation owners so much money that they could easily afford to pay the slaves, but they didn't. I also like your point about food. It really reminds me of the part in the video when Fiddler said, "Christmas is the only time we get to eat good." Especially in an economy that is based on farming, it doesn't seem right that the slaves were deprived of good food and still expected to do hard work for long hours every day.
DeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in the United States during the 1800's. Plantation owners were living luxurious lives, as shown by the farm owner in the video. The cotton business was booming, and while it helped the economy, it also made plantation owners more wealthy then they needed to be. Based on the master's lifestyle in the video, it seems that he could have easily afforded to pay his slaves and allow them to live free lives for their hard work. Instead, the master used his money to buy more slaves and purchase expensive indulgences.
ReplyDeleteThe treatment of slaves was unconstitutional and morally wrong. White people treated black people as though they were not human. In the video, a white man compared educating a black individual to teaching a bear how to dance. This same man also stated, "Us white men dominate the blacks." To imply that a black person is no greater than a wild animal is racist and negligent. To think that one race dominated another race because of skin color is unconstitutional. The Constitution states that "All Men are created equal." Slavery was an unconstitutional practice, and for that reason Congress should have abolished slavery when the constitution was written.
I really like how you criticized the idea of slavery by comparing it to the statement made by the Constitution that "All Men are created equal," because it shows how slavery is truly unconstitutional, as well as illustrates the hypocrisy of the politicians who enforced the laws. I also agree that it is clear based on the video that the plantation owners had plenty of money free the slaves and pay them for their hard work. If they had never forced these men and women into slavery in the first place, they would have had nothing to fear by freeing them.
DeleteI think you proposed the idea that slavery should not have been allowed very well. I agree that slaves only supported the luxurious lifestyles of rich white men. They did not need slaves, but it made their lives easier at the expense of another man’s freedom. When you refer back to the Constitution, I think it was inferred at the time to mean “All (rich white) men are created equal.” Looking back, with current day problems in mind, it is easy to see the many flaws with slavery. However those issues were widely accepted in the 1820s, even though slavery was unethical.
DeleteJack, I agree with what you said about Masters being able to pay their slaves given the lavish lifestyle they were living. I also think the video exhibits this. This leads me to believe that maybe the Southern plantation owners relied on slaves to sustain their economy because they were able to complete profit off of their cotton sales. Because the Masters did not have to divide the profit amongst his workers, he was able to live this lavish life while his slaves had barely anything. Thus, it was not their economy that would crash if Slavery was abolished, the platers would just make less profit.
DeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in our country during the early part of the 1800's because the South became so reliant on the slave trade that their economy could no longer function without it. Due to the extensive amount of land, time, and money that plantations took up in the South, this region was unable to develop the types of cities, technology, and educational systems that made the North so successful without having slaves. Furthermore, according to reading, the South became "...increasingly dependent on the North and West for food, industrial goods, commercial resources, books and magazines, and even higher education." If slavery had not been allowed during this time period, the South would have had the money and resources to improve the way of life in the states,as well as develop a stronger economy like the North based on industry, rather than agriculture. Because slaves were not at all necessary in order for the South to develop a stronger economy, this disrespectful idea should have been banned from our country during the early 1800's.
ReplyDeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in our country during the early 1800's. There is no doubting the fact that slavery was beneficial to the ecenomy, free labor means that money doesn't need to be spent to pay workers. No matter how beneficial to the economy it may have been though, treating one group of people as less than another is wrong, and the leaders of America at the time knew that. The second sentence in the Declaration of Independence asserts that "all men are created equal". Granted, this only applied to wealthy protestant white man, but this sentence was written by men who knew what it felt like to be treated as inferiors, and determined that it was wrong. They sacrificed this moral beleif for the sake of the economy and pleasing the powerful leaders of southern governments. They chose not to abolish slavery when writing the new constitution, and furthermore came to an agreement that a slave will be counted as 3/5ths of a person for both taxing and representative purposes. This was a literal example of the way that slaves were treated unequally to other citizens. Besides this, there is the blaring fact that they were "owned" and received no pay, and on top of that the fact that they were completely stripped of their identities. In the film we watched, Kunta was whipped continuosly until he would say that his name was Toby. Slaves were being punished for attempting to hold on to the most basic and primitive of rights- the right to one's identity. Regardless of the benefits for the economy, slavery was an exagerrated model of the treatment from that the colonists had complained of. The colonists dispised the inequality that they were facing so much that they broke off from Britain completely, so what right do they have to try and keep the slaves from doing the same?
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point bringing the constitution into the problem of slavery in the 1800s. I completely agree that the way the men who wrote the constitution really did not see the slaves as actual people rather a figure of work without pay. Regardless of the lack of pay though the treatment of the slaves was morally wrong and should not have been tolerated in the country. I also think that your question at the end brings up a good point. If the unequal treatment was one of the reasons for the revolution against the British, it does not make sense that we would treat these people the same or many times even worse than how Britain treated the colonists.
DeleteI believe that slavery should not have been allowed in the United States in the early 1800's. Slavery was detrimental to the growth of the country, specifically the south. People of the south said that slaves were essential for their economy, however slavery interfered with and was harmful to the southern economy. While the North’s industry and agriculture was benefitting from technological innovations, the South lagged behind with their reliance on manual labor. Slavery also limited the development of technology, cities, and schools in the South. This is because the south invested in slaves, land, and home goods, and not industry or technology like the North. Therefor slavery was not essential to the southern economy, but detrimental.
ReplyDeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in the 1800's. At this time the country was new and it was necessary to form a main industry to base the economy off of. When they allowed slavery it made it so that the economy of the south would run off of cotton while the economy of the north textile. This was a bad system because it was based on slavery. Slavery was dividing the north and the south. It would have been better for the country to base the economy off of an industry that did not divide the country. This is because at this point in time the government needed to stay stronger together. A stronger union of states would have lead to a stronger country, and slavery was divisive. Also, it set up the country to eventually fail. The government pushed off its decision on slavery until it lead to a civil war. If they had made a decision sooner it would not have been as catastrophic in the end.
ReplyDeleteJulian, I agree with you and find that your comment summarizes many problems with slavery in a clear way. Not only was the divide in the country slavery caused dangerous, but it was harmful to the early years of America. You say that if the government had decided to outlaw slavery sooner, the effects of the ruling would not be so extreme. I just wonder how the sooner ruling would have effected newly free America and its economy. Would it have helped the South in the long run?
DeleteI believe that slavery should not have been allowed in America in the early 1800s because it was immoral and went against the values which the nation was created upon, and the people were aware of it. The Declaration of Independence says that "All Men are created equal." In the South, however, the slaves were not treated equally at all. While white people lived luxuriously, slaves were treated brutally and forced to live in horrible conditions. New slaves who had just come over from Africa were chained and immediately forced to go to work. They were expected to do what they were told, even though they did not speak English. Slave owners treated slaves like this, even though they knew that it was immoral. In "Roots," the slave trainer says that, "Slaves are not born; they are made." This implies that he knows that the Africans and African-Americans really are born equal, so when the they become slaves, it is taking away their equality, one of the basic human rights which America was formed to protect.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point that you made regarding the violation of equality expressed in the Constitution. The way the slave owners tried to avoid this issue, that all men are created equal, was to dehumanize the African's and African-American's. In the movie roots, there was a scene in the slave owners house where they are discussion whether or not a slave was capable of basic concepts and skills, buying into the idea that slaves are not people and do not deserve to be equal to the white man.
DeletePhilippe, I agree with your idea about "All men are created equal" and how slaves are not created equal. That is why slavery corrupted the Constitution because "All men" aren't referring to all men but all white christian men. Therefore, slavery violates the Constitution and should not have been allowed.
DeleteI do not believe slavery should have been allowed to exist in America in the early 1800s because it allowed the people to grow dependent on others to do the hard work. As mentioned in the Missouri Compromise, some Americans at the time said that they had no business laboring because it was the job of the slaves. Slavery should have been abolished as early as possible because it would have prevented people from becoming reliant on slaves to drive the entire southern economy. An early decision to abolish slavery would have had significantly less issues arise because the culture would not yet have developed this dependency. Congress expressed that they did not intend to permit slavery forever in its earlier days and to allow the southern culture to form around it with this knowledge was cruel because abolishing slavery afterwards would leave the southern states more land and business than could possibly be run by the southern free community whereas if slavery had been discussed head on at the first opportunity, the south could have created an independent economy.
ReplyDeleteSlavery should not have been allowed in America in the early 1800’s. Even though the South claimed that slavery was essential to their economy, the North proved the contrary. The textbook explains how, “...slavery limited the development of cities, technology, and educational institutions, leaving the South increasingly dependent on the North and West for food, industrial goods, commercial resources, books and magazines, and even higher education” (pg. 428). The South's dependency on the North and West for goods showed how restricting slavery actually was for their economy and lifestyle. Also, these slaves were treated like animals and object, leaving slavery to be one of the most corrupt concepts ever to be introduced to the country. This idea was exhibited in the textbook, stating that, “some mistresses gave [slaves] as gifts or bequests to family members and friends” (pg. 248). Then in “Root,” the fiddler stored the slave, who was given the name Toby, in a horse stall. Along with the fact that the Mistress of the house asked her husband, Master Reynolds, whether he though slaves had feelings like the whites did. This short list of examples of how the slave owners did not consider slaves humans, exhibits the biggest reason why slavery should not have existed because it was in-humanizing.
ReplyDeleteSlavery was not essential to the economy and should have been abolished in the early 1820s. Firstly, slavery was unethical and promoted racism throughout the Union. John Quincy Adams explained, “Domestic labor was confined to blacks, and such was the prejudice.” Another example of immoral treatment of slaves was during the video when the slave, Toby, was continually whipped. In addition, slavery was not a necessity at the time, even though it did benefit white men with certain aspects of their lives. In the video, there was clearly a considerable amount of land to work on, and it would not be efficient enough for the plantation owners to have only a few workers. However, white men could have worked on the farm as well, even though many believed the contrary, “It was only manual labor—the proper work of slaves. No white person could descend to that” (Adams). Although it was more convenient to own slaves, it was not necessary to be successful in society during the 1820s. It was unconstitutional, and did not have a big enough benefit to be justifiable. If slavery was not introduced into our country, many problems regarding racism, would not be as substantial today.
ReplyDeleteI believe that slavery should have been allowed during the beginning of the 1800s but that a plan should have been worked out to slowly relieve slavery of its role in the economy. Although slavery is terrible, I believe that it should have been allowed for some time because of its important role in the economy. Free labor led to lower prices and allowed consumers to not spend too much money on certain things. If the alternative of paid labor was embraced, prices would be much higher and consumers would not be able to afford a lot of products.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a plan to work slavery out of the economy should have been put in place because slavery was terrible and an abrupt plan would be too much of a shock. An unanimous consensus can be reached that slavery was, is, and always will be terrible so it reasonable to say that a plan should have been worked out to end it. I believe that the plan should not have been an abrupt one because if every slave was freed at once that either Souther agriculture would suddenly end or plantation owners would start paying the freed slaves and severly increase prices to maintain their lavish lifestyles. This is why although slavery is bad, I believe that it should have been allowed in the beginning of the 1800s and that a plan should have been worked out to relieve slavery of its role in society.