Category: Slavery

Introduction

One of civilization’s bleak moments in history is the slavery incident that continues to be an embarrassment for the nations that were involved in it almost two centuries after the official abolishment of the slavery institution in most nations. While slavery is mostly attributed to the colonies in the Americas whose plantation heavily relied on the manual labor provided by the slaves, European country such as Britain and France also made use of African slaves in their home soils.

As such, slaves where present in Britain and most of them were used as household servants as opposed to their North American counterparts who worked in the plantations. The Institute of slavery had various social, economic and political implications for both the African slaves and their White masters.

While the masters sought to maintain their proprietorship of the slaves whom they considered to be their assets, the slaves were determined to obtain their freedom. In addition to this two opposing forces, there was the rise of an abolitionist movement in Britain in the 18th century. All this factors resulted in the ultimate abolishment of slavery in Britain by Parliament, which in 1834 outright abolished slavery in the British Empire.

The abolitionist movement and the Black slaves of Britain both played a role in the ultimate abolishment of slavery in Britain. While the role of the abolitionist movement in the eventual demise of slavery is applauded, that of the Black people in English society is hugely ignored. Lorimer asserts that the role of Black resistance in ending slavery was not only monumental but may in fact have a role rivaling that of abolitionists in ending slavery in England (58).

This paper shall set out to investigate the merit to this argument advanced by Lorimer that the Black slaves of England played a critical role in catalyzing the eventual abolishment of slavery in the British Empire. The paper shall review other credible sources so as to ascertain if they concur with Lorimer’s claims.

Slavery, a Definition

Slavery in Britain was defined as perpetual servitude for the black population and their progeny. The major factor that led to the need for slaves was the labor deficit in Britain and especially in her colonies. While there existed indentured servants and white laborers in both Britain and the colonies, Vickers asserts that “No British colony every founded a successful society on the basis of free white labor” (2).

This strong declaration highlights the fact that slavery was at the onset solely focused on the labor needs that the white population was incapable of providing for on their own. Some of the Black slaves who came to Britain were brought by their masters who were impressed by their services in the colonies and therefore wished to retain them on the Britain mainland.

Arguments Supporting Lorimer’s Claims

One of the arguments given by Lorimer is that the Black slaves in England used the legal avenue to hasten their freedom. The famous Somerset case which involved a slave from Virginia who on arrival to England had deserted his master only to be apprehended and placed on a ship bound for the colonies is especially quoted as being a landmark case in the fight for freedom by the slaves.

This is because the ruling by judge Mansfield greatly weakened the slavery institute by his statement that “slavery could only be introduced by positive law” (Maclachlan 10). Lorimer notes that the decision to go to court by Somerset to object his being deported to Jamaica resulted in the disambiguation of the law as with regard to the full rights of ownership of slaves by their masters (Lorimer 65).

This with other slave resistances forced the issue before the courts, therefore, exposing the vulnerability of the slave owners and the lack of legal basis to protect their rights to ownership. The decision to acquit Somerset by Judge Mansfield accentuated the limitation of the slave owners in controlling their slaves.

This slave led initiative set precedence to other cases as well as encouraged the slaves to run away from their masters since they knew that there was no legal basis for them to be apprehended and taken back to their masters. From this, it is evident that the slaves played a major role in hastening the ultimate abolishment of slavery by their actions.

In his writing, Lorimer advances that religion played a major role in the attainment of freedom by the slaves. He reveals that Black slaves used religion as a basis for their obtaining freedom. Lorimer notes that free Blacks encouraged the new coming slaves to be baptized into the religion so as to avoid being re-enslaved since being a “heathen” was grounds for enslavement (60). By doing this, Lorimer extrapolates that the Blacks were responsible for the freedom of many of their kin.

This reasoning is corroborated by Brown who documents that the antislavery pioneer, Granville Sharp, blamed the problems that Britain was experiencing as God’s wrath against England for its involvement in the slave trade (528). With this reasoning, the conversion of enslaved men and women to Christianity became grounds for being freed.

Lorimer argues that the Black slaves of Britain, therefore, manipulated religion to their own end which resulted in many of them being freed without the direct assistance of the abolitionists. As such, while religion played a role in their freedom, it is the manipulation of the same by the Blacks that resulted in their freedom.

Lorimer states that Blacks were subjected to discrimination as a result of their skin color. While racism was never the original cause of slavery, it came about as a result of slavery. Grigg suggests that racism sprung from an irrational hatred for those who were different because of their skin color (Grigg 255). Africanus states that the Negro was exposed to prejudices unlike those suffered by any other race (3). In the mind of the British slave owners, black was associated with negative connotations such as evil.

This notion of evilness and barbarism by Africans was further reinforced by the perceived savagery and heathenism of Africans in the African continent. It was also easier on the conscience to lord over a race of people who were perceived to be inferior and therefore not deserving to be treated as equals.

Christianity also played a part in advancing racism as the clergy used the bible to legitimize belief in black inferiority. The Britons who were by the large a religious people therefore believed that perpetuation of slavery was of sound biblical standing. As such, the Blacks belonged to the lowest social class and their sole purpose was to serve their white masters for life.

Lorimer states that the freed slaves were responsible for the formation of modern civilization in parts of West Africa, for example, Sierra Leone. He claims that the free blacks who were repatriated to Sierra Leone were a potent political and social force in the African motherland (75). Brown reveals that some African preachers indeed saw West Africa as the “New Zion” where the now freed slaves would return to bring civilization and the gospel to their motherland (531).

However, not all freed slaves viewed repatriation as a good option and many of them chose to remain in Britain as laborers since they feared being re-enslaved on returning to Africa. This resulted in some of the slaves opting to stay in Britain as free men and women. The argument by Lorimer that the Black ex-slaves played a huge role in Africa is corroborated by Brown who notes that their activism resulted in social change (531).

Arguments Against Lorimer’s Claims

The move towards eventual abolishment of slavery can be proposed to have started with the ending of the transatlantic trade. This is because it is the transatlantic trade that led to a vast importation of slaves from Africa into Britain. Quirk notes that the anti-slavery pioneers in Britain fought valiantly for the ending of Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic trade (535). This was from recognition on their part that so long as the trade persisted, it would be impossible to effectively tackle the slavery issue in Britain.

Their dedication paid off with the eventual end of the slave trade which led to a decrease in the number of slaves in Britain. After this, the abolitionists concentrated on abolishing the slavery institute itself. These facts negate Lorimer’s claim that the actions of the Black slaves in Britain were the force that resulted in an eventual end of slavery. The slaves did not play any part in lobbying for the end of the transatlantic trade which was the natural precursor to the calls for an end to slavery.

If the Transatlantic trade had been allowed to continue undeterred, it is unlikely that there would have been a move towards abolishing slavery. As such, it would be erroneous to attribute the end of slavery in Britain to the Blacks who played a minimal role as compared to the abolitionists.

While Lorimer notes that there was a general move towards the abolition of slavery in Britain, there also existed strong parties who supported slavery and viewed it as critical to Britain’s economic well being and military superiority. One such proponent of Slavery, Albert, in a letter to the then Right Honorable William Pitt forcefully stated that if abolishment of slave trade succeeded, Britain would suffer immeasurable losses in her Marine influence and public revenue both at home and in her colonies (5).

It is highly implausible that the Black slaves (educated or not) could have defended themselves against the articulate arguments made by the proponents of slavery in Britain. For example, Alfred in his letter to the Honorable William Pitt made a passionate appeal that the abolition of slavery was tantamount to “domestic cruelty” to the great people of Britain (11).

Against such well-read and passionate slave trade advocate, the sole actions of the Black slaves in Britain would have had little effect in swaying public opinion to their favor. However, some of the arguments presented by the pro-slavery advocate were out rightly absurd. For example, Alfred advanced that an end in the slave trade would result in the inevitable death of the slave at the various slave coasts as a result of the lack of a purchaser (12).

This argument is weak since it blatantly overlooks the fact that the Africans lived in a sustainable environment and did not require to be sold off as slaves so as to survive. All in all, the appeal that proponents of slavery made to the well being of Britain even if at the expense of the African slaves resonated with majority of the population and without the help of the White abolitionists, the Africans would not have succeeded in their calls for freedom.

One of the factors that resulted in an end to slavery was the new prominence with which man’s natural state of freedom was viewed. This resulted in most people in the society viewing slavery as repugnant in nature and a gross violation of man’s natural state of freedom (Maclachlan 5). With such sentiments being held by the society, the judicial system began to be sympathetic to slaves and rule in their favor.

Lorimer reveals that up until this point, slave owners in Britain had been confident in the sympathy of the legal establishment to their causes (64). However, all this changed following the “age of enlightenment” in which many civilized European nations actively supported the concept of individual liberty and by extension, favored the total abolishment of slavery (Maclachlan 6). The freedom of the Blacks in Britain was therefore a result of this change in opinion concerning the institute of slavery.

This is what resulted in the favorable results that the slaves had in court. This being the case, the fact that the slaves took their grievances to court which favorable results was a result of the change in community’s view of slavery.

Lorimer’s suggests that the Blacks played a major role in bringing about their freedom by presenting their cases to the courts and making appealing arguments. While it is true that the Blacks did rely on the judicial system to air their grievances, the positive response was as a result of the changing perception on slavery by the society in general.

Brown notes that the fact that Christianity played a role in the abolishment of slavery is somewhat contradictory considering the fact that it was the Christian Europe that had devised and carried out the infamous transatlantic slave trade (26). This is contrary to the thoughts advanced by Lorimer that Christianity was the benevolent force behind abolishment of slavery.

The slavery institute was credited for the expansion of Christianity throughout America and as a matter of fact, Christian religious leaders were in fact responsible for providing the ideological support for the institution of slavery (Brown 518). Maclachlan documents that the Europeans involved in slave trade could “fall back on the notion that slaves would be compensated for a life of cruel drudgery by the benefits of the Christian faith” (1). As such, the church was in fact responsible for the growth of slavery.

Cugoano laments that in the land where Christianity was planted, and where one would have expected the virtues and harmony that epitomize the religion to be evident, there was “bramble of ruffians, barbarians and slave holders, grown up to a powerful luxuriance in wickedness” (24). In addition to this, religion was manipulated to ensure that the slaves acted as their masters wished. Brown reveals that some priests taught that a yearning for liberty was a vice and that wrongdoing among the slaves could result in eternal damnation (522).

While Christian religion did play a positive role in slavery, this role was mostly restricted to the improvement of the treatment of slaves and not the overthrow of the slavery system. However, the close association between Christian missionaries and the slaves did result in the creation of bonds and the missionaries became sympathetic to the cause of the slaves. This eventually led to a denouncing of slavery as a violation of divine law and therefore a sin.

The arguments presented by Lorimer almost entirely fail to acknowledge the role that slaves played in the Britain economy. A letter from Innes, a West-India Merchant, stated that the abolishment of the slave trade would result in mass unemployment to ship builders, manufactures and other people whose work somehow associated with slaves (19).

Slaves were seen as a means to an end and their role in the plantations was significant. Abolishing slavery would deprive Britain of the much-needed labor force. With such huge consequences at hand, the Black slaves could not bring about their own freedom since their freedom would have been equal to the economic doom of the British Empire. It was only through the aid of British philanthropists and the abolitionist movement that the right to freedom by the slaves was given any consideration.

While Lorimer does not discount the role that abolitionists played in ending slavery, he theorizes that slave insubordination and desertion in the 1760s resulted in the virtual disappearance of slavery in England by the end of the 18th century. This is a false deduction since in the colonies such as America were the abolitionist movement was not as vocal, the slaves were subjected to harsh repercussions that made insubordination and desertion very risky affairs.

In the America colonies, slave codes which were a body of colonial and state laws that dealt with how the slaves were governed in colonial America were en enacted resulting in a comprehensive code for their overall control of slaves. Slave codes were mostly motivated by the fear that followed the Negro insurrection of 1712 whereby slaves revolted against the harsh and unjust treatment that they were subjected to. Slave codes by the large imposed even greater limits to the already limited rights of the African Slaves.

The Fugitive Slave Act enacted in 1793 gave the federal and colonial authorities the power to arrest any suspected deserting slaves (Connors). This law legitimized the seizing of alleged The authorities were therefore empowered to issue warrants for the arrests and subsequent return to the original owner of any African-American who was suspected to be an escaped slave. The law also made the aiding and abetting of a runaway slave a federal crime that was punishable by law.

This law licensed the exercise of violence against the alleged escaped slave. Whipping, branding and dismemberment of runaway slaves were therefore legitimized mostly to act as deterrence to the slave population. In almost all cases, the slave codes were detrimental to the interests of the slaves. Undoubtedly, if such laws were in place in Britain, slaves would not have engaged in their insubordinate behavior or even dared to desert their masters due to the legal ramifications that they would have been subjected to.

Lorimer represents the Black slaves as a benevolent peace loving people wronged by the system. Lorimer indicates that the Blacks rebellion was in the form of resisting the master’s authority by bargaining for wages (70). This depiction of the slaves as a peaceful people is refuted by the letter from Innes who records that there were numerous rebellions of the Negroes both in the colonies and in the motherland after talk of their being made free was known (27).

In addition to this, the freed slaves who returned to Africa were accused of corrupting the morals of the native black community, therefore, resulting in a lot of social discourse. This acts of violence and social mayhem run contrary to the image of the Black slave that Lorimer paints through his essay.

Discussion

Both the Black slaves in Britain and the abolitionist movement played a role in the eventual abolition of slavery in Great Britain. However, the role of the White abolitionist was monumental in advancing the cause for the slaves.

Before the freedom of the Blacks could be achieved in Britain, there had to be a will by the society to make this happen. Philmore, one of the advocates for the abolitionist movement, made a strong case for the Blacks by stating that the black skinned and white skinned being all belonged to the same human race (7).

Such appeals resulted in a shift in view of blacks as inferior to a view of Blacks as equals and hence deserving of decent treatment as fellow human beings. The decline in slavery also resulted from the erosion of support for forced labor by the society which led to a negative view of the slave owners (Maclachlan 1). This being the case, the arguments advanced by Lorimer fail to give the necessary significance on these social changes which played a major role in the ending of slavery.

While the aims of the abolitionists may not always have been noble, it is clear that they are the people who made it possible for the Black slaves in Britain to eventually obtain their freedom. Through their valiant calls for the abolishment of slave trade and subsequently slavery, the abolitionists brought about the freedom of the Black slaves.

The abolitionists also printed out pamphlets and other material which was aimed at sensitizing the public on the evils of slavery. It can be hypothesized that this increased awareness on the plight of the slaves was what resulted in the ending of slavery. Maclachlan advances that this awareness resulted in the birth of the notion that slavery “constituted a relic of the barbarous past” which modern Europe could no longer identify with (6).

However, this is not to say that Blacks did not play a role in attaining their freedom. The blacks also contributed to the publicizing of their plights by going to court. This together with their insubordinate behavior and an increase in the frequency of their deserting of their masters resulted in having a slave being a liability to the master. The blacks also supported the moves by the abolitionists and together, they brought about the eventual end of slavery in Britain.

Conclusion

This paper set out to investigate the merit to Lorimer’s argument that the Black slaves of England played a critical role in catalyzing the eventual abolishment of slavery in the British Empire. From the discussions presented herein, it can authoritatively be stated that the role of Blacks in bringing about the abolishment of slavery is only secondary to that of the Whites.

This is because the White abolitionists played the more significant role of bringing about the end of the slave trade and raising social awareness of the plight of the slaves, therefore, obtaining the freedom for the slaves. By relying on authoritative sources for support, this paper has shown that the Black slaves in England could not have achieved much if they did not have the support of the abolitionists.

As such, history is justified in accentuating the actions of the abolitionists. However, the part that Blacks played in the abolishment of slavery however minimal should not be disregarded. As such, historians should endeavor to give the little credit that is due to the Blacks as Lorimer insists in his essay.

Work Cited

Africanus. “Remarks on the slave trade, and the Slavery of the Negroes. In a series of letters.” Eighteenth Century Collections Online. London, 1788.

Alfred. “Letters of Alfred, to the Right Honourable William Pitt, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and first Lord of the Treasury, upon the important subject of the slave trade in general; but, referring particularly to his speech, as printed, of the 2d of April, 1792.” Eighteenth Century Collections Online. London, 1793.

Brown, Christopher Leslie. “Christianity and the campaign against slavery and the salve trade.” Cambridge Histories Online, 2006.

Connors, Tiffany. How the Underground Railroad Worked. 2008. Web.

Cugoano, Ottobah. “Thoughts and sentiments on the evil and wicked traffic of the slavery and commerce of the human species, humbly submitted to the inhabitants of Great-Britain, by Ottobah Cugoano, A Native of Africa.” Eighteenth Century Collections Online. London, 1787.

Grigg, John. British Colonial America: People and Perspectives. ABC-CLIO, 2008.

Innes, William. “The slave-Trade indispensable: in answer to the speech of William Wilberforce, Esq. on the 13th of May, 1789. By a West-India-Merchant.” Eighteenth Century Collections Online. London, 1790.

Lorimer, Douglas. Black Resistance to slavery and racism in Eighteen-century England.

Maclachlan, Colin M. “Slavery, Ideology, and Institutional Change: The Impact of the Enlightenment on Slavery in Late Eighteenth-Century Maranhao.” Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1979.

Philmore, J. Two Dialogues on the Man-Trade. London: Charing-Cross, 1760.

Quirk, Joel. “Ending Slavery in all its Forms: Legal Abolition and Effective Emancipation in Historical Perspective.” International Journal of Human Rights 12, no. 4. 2008.

In the year 1862, President Abraham Lincoln had only one goal which was to save the union in whichever way he knew possible with less concentration on slavery. Restoration of national authority was the fastest way to save the union. Lincoln’s actions towards slavery were, therefore, taken on the basis that they would help in saving the union.

Lincoln had always claimed that he was against slavery; however he said that his constitutional right did not allow him to stop it and ha had expectations that prevention of slave trade to new U.S. would terminate the slavery. However, he had realized that the only way to save the union, which was his main goal, was to abolish slavery. As a result, in 1983, he signed a formal public statement for liberation.

Due to this hindrance to abolish slavery in the union, Lincoln decided to do it from the southern states of America using his powers as the commander in chief of the United States. He came up with this decision when he realized that it was easier for the southern states to engage in a war because of the slave labor. The slavery immobilized the economy of the southern states therefore his plan was an action intended to further the union’s efforts in helping the south.

This act was a very simple one but formal as well since Lincoln revealed it to the cabinet and asked for their opinions. This move gave him constitutional authority to obstruct in the salve trade. After emancipation was proclaimed, all slaves were freed including those who were not under the Union. After emancipation, Lincoln established some settlements for the newly liberated slaves (Allard 1).

Lincoln had planned to colonize the freed slaves something which he commented on the emancipation proclamation. However, this plan did not work out as he had expected. This failure drove him to integrate the proclamation policies into the constitution to get rid of slavery completely throughout America. The freed slaves were used in the military as stated in the emancipation government policies.

Although Lincoln was initially not willing to implement the policy, he eventually started the enrollment of the military which were called the Negro troops. Surprisingly, he initiated the process of increasing black troops despite the fact that he was initially against racial equality between blacks and Americans. Lincoln became the first American against racial racism with over 50,000 black soldiers being enrolled under his directions. Reconstruction began at the time when the war was still happening.

Lincoln recommended that speedy elections should be done at the course of the war in his efforts to reunite the nation without any indifference to the south. With the intimidation of the southern states, a resolution on their leadership had to be made. He also appointed governors and general to put up plans to promote state restoration something which some citizens. Soon after the emancipation implementation Lincoln tried to influence the public to support the elimination of slavery and its implementation.

According to Lincoln, the amendment of the slavery law would be more effective. The union’s victory was achieved in September when it forced back Lee’s invasion of the northern states but with a stern warning from Lincoln that they should return before January 1, 1863 failure to which the northern slaves would be declared free. President Lincoln’s plan came out as a success especially with the positive response from the northern states (Foster, 1).

Worked Cited

Allard, P. “Civil War: Reconstruction”. 2006. Web.

Foster, D. “Setting the Stage for Failure: How Lincoln’s Public Discourse on Slavery Nullified the Effectiveness of his First Inaugural Address”. 2008. Web.

The French Revolution

Slaves learned about the French Revolution and decided to discuss their rights and future. As a result, they started to hold mass meetings in order to prepare for resistance. Slaves had already started to organize themselves into small groups of rebels in different isolated plantations.

Santo Domingo became a critical center for insurrection as slaves organized themselves. Slave masters terribly repressed their slaves. The French Revolution led to the spread of revolutionary ideas. French soldiers who visited the France colony of Santo Domingo also spread the idea of revolution among blacks. French soldiers also informed black slaves and mulattoes that the French legislatures had acknowledged that all humans were same and liberated.

Black rebels used the Island of Santo Domingo as their base during 1791 resistance. Most rebels were blacks who were working in sugar plantations. In addition, other oppressed workers also joined the revolution with the aim of eliminating their masters. Black revolters established bases in all locations they had destroyed.

Most blacks identified with the revolution movement. Consequently, slaves made their interests strategic objectives during their struggle. Cooper focused on the relationship between the French Revolution and its impacts on French colonies, particularly in the island. The author noted that slavery was a critical matter during the French Revolution. Blacks struggled for their freedom as the French Revolution provided them with new ideas. According to Cooper, one can comprehend the French Revolution alongside the question of race (Cooper 83).

Blacks struggled for total abolishment of slavery. Rebel leaders and soldiers worked together to ensure that the Port of Santo Domingo was safe. Toussaint became the most important leader during 1800 in Santo Domingo as he organized the island into a strong economy and established a military autocracy. Toussaint became authoritative and autonomous as he led rebels and French soldiers. This organization scared Napoleon as Toussaint led the slave revolution in Santo Domingo.

The cruelty of slave masters, who were owners of plantations, led to a deep-rooted feeling of suffering and rebellion as slaves started to demand for their rights. However, one must recognize that slave rebellion and revolution started long before the French Revolution emerged. Slaves conducted secret meetings, used language, and religion to resist their masters.

After the French Revolution, the law prohibited slavery and abolished in Santo Domingo. Rebels in the island understood the confusion and division among their white masters. As a result, they led the Haitian Revolution with a specific objective of ensuring that slavery ended. In order to realize this object, blacks were willing to take any challenge to achieve their goal.

Santo Domingo

Santo Domingo Island became a critical location for insurrection as many black slaves turned against their white masters and plantation owners in quest for freedom. The Haitian Revolution started in 1791. Initially, the Revolution was in a single location of the Island in the northern plain, but it later spread to other areas as other slaves joined the fight against oppression.

This was an issue of race struggle. While scholars have provided accounts of historical events at Santo Domingo, many white authors did not present actual events but rather portrayed the black revolution as a series of disorganized, unsystematic actions. However, the Haitian Revolution was organized, had leadership, and a sense of unity. This was a triumphant rebellion of against white plantation owners in history.

Works Cited

Cooper, Anna Julia. Slavery And The French And Haitian Revolutionists 2nd ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2006. Print.

Introduction

The system of slavery has been practiced by different societies in human civilization for millenniums. Three continents that have been involved in large-scale slavery over the centuries are African, Europe, and the Americas. The Arabs participated in slavery in sub-Saharan Africa from 1100 to 1400 while the Ottoman Empire had a flourishing slavery system in the 1500s.

The Portuguese colonizers engaged in slavery in Brazil and the Caribbean between 1500 and 1800. This paper will engage in an analysis of these three versions of slavery in order to highlight the similarities and differences among these different versions of slavery.

Similarities

A similarity in all the versions of slavery is that the slaves were forcefully relocated from their motherland. In sub-Saharan slavery, the slaves were captured in raids or sold off by their rulers who were mostly in the Middle East. In the Ottoman Empire, the slaves were obtained though military conquest or bought from the Crimean Tatars. The slaves for the Brazilian and Caribbean Islands were captured from the African interior and transported to the coasts where they were sold off to European slave traders.

Another similarity among the different versions of slavery is that a significant number of slaves died in transit. In sub-Saharan slavery, the black slaves had to cross through the harsh deserts often on foot. Many of them did not survive this horrifying trek due to the extreme heat during the day and cold at night.

The slaves in the Ottoman Empire were often obtained from the Crimean Tatars who engaged in the capture and selling of slaves. This process of capturing and transportation of humans by the Tatars was very cruel. The African slaves destined for Brazil and the Caribbean were transported across the Atlantic in overcrowded ships and under inhumane conditions. Many died during this journey due to the harsh conditions.

The slaves played a major role in the social and economic environment of their new home. In sub-Saharan slavery, the slaves went on to become domestic servants to wealth Arabs. These slaves were entrusted with family business and they could represent their masters in important commercial undertakings.

In the Ottoman Empire, slaves promoted the commercial well being of the society by working as skilled craftsmen. In addition to this, there were elite slaves who served as administrators and military commanders in the Ottoman Empire. In the Caribbean and Brazil, the slaves provided the labor necessary to fuel the sugar export driven economy of the Portuguese colonizers.

Differences

The main tasks that the slaves performed for their masters also differed. In the trans-Saharan slavery, the African slaves were especially important as domestic servants and concubines. The slaves were generally treated well and there was some prestige attached to being the slave to a rich Arab master or ruler.

The ottomans made use of slaves as laborers in craft production and agriculture. In addition to this, the Ottomans relied on the slaves as soldiers. During the 1500s, there was a great demand for soldiers and the Ottomans recruited slaves from conquered lands and trained them as professional soldiers who were used for further military expansion. The slaves in Brazil and the Caribbean were used primarily as laborers in the sugar plantations. In addition to this, the slaves also worked in the mines.

The three slavery versions also differed in the race makeup of the slave population. Slaves in sub-Saharan Africa were blacks who were obtained from this the interior of Africa by the Arab traders who had taken on a strong interest in African since the mid-seventh century.

The ottomans obtained their slaves from primarily from the conquered regions of Europe. These slaves were therefore of Caucasian races since they were from the Slavic and European regions. The slaves in Brazil and the Caribbean were the indigenous peoples of the region who were enslaved by the colonists. In addition to this, there was a huge influx of African slaves obtained from the African continent.

Another difference was in the preference for slaves of a particular gender over the other. In sub-Saharan slavery, there was a marked bias in favor of women for trade. This preference for women was because slaves were predominantly used as servants and concubines for the Arabs.

The Ottomans valued both male and female slaves. Men were preferred since there was a high demand for soldiers and skilled craftsmen. Women were also valued since there was a great demand for domestic servants in the Empire. Brazil and the Caribbean preferred male slaves who could work in the sugar plantations and mines.

The method of attaining slaves also differed among the three cases. In sub-Saharan Africa, slaves were obtained primarily though raids to villages or as tributes offered by some rules to the Arabs in order to avoid being attacked. In the Ottoman Empire, slaves were primarily obtained though military engagements.

Slaves were obtained from the lands that the Ottoman military had conquered. Communities were forced to give up their children as slaves to the conquering ottoman armies. Slaves for the plantations and mines in Brazil and the Caribbean were bought from the slave markets in Africa. The European bought these slaves from Arabs and Africans who ventured inland to capture the slaves.

Conclusion

This paper set out to highlight the similarities and differences in three different versions of slaveries. It has noted that the different versions of slavery were similar in that they led to a displacement of the slaves from their homeland and they involved cruel means of transporting slaves.

In addition to this, the slaves contributed to the economic prosperity of their masters. The major differences included the major activities that the slaves were used for, the race make up of the slaves, the gender preference of the slaves, and the means of obtaining the slaves.

Propaganda refers to the form of communication that is meant to influence the feelings and attitudes of individual to believe or support a certain viewpoint. The aim of the propagandist is to ensure that an individual backs his or her position by simply presenting one side of the story.

Studies show that propaganda statements might be either true or false. Since the major objective is to change the minds of many people as possible, propaganda statements are often repeated and are distributed through a number of media in order to reach many individuals (Cunningham 78).

In some instances, propaganda information present facts selectively in order to support a particular synthesis and in other cases, it makes use of loaded messages to incite people’s emotions instead of encouraging individuals to judge information rationally.

Propaganda is used to influence people’s political, spiritual, and business-related views. Throughout the US history, it has been used effectively to support particular positions. During slavery, advocates of slavery system used it to justify their position while Douglass employed it to influence people’s minds against slavery. This paper looks at various aspects of propaganda, including its techniques, as well the way pro-slavery advocates and opponents, including Douglass, employed it.

Classification of Propaganda

In the modern society, propaganda is a term that no one would want to be associated with because of its wrong usage in Germany. In reality, propaganda is a neutral term that can be utilized in educating people to change their views towards a better future.

In fact, propaganda messages could be employed effectively to encourage individuals to participate in community programs, engage in health improving practices, take part in important events, such as census and elections, and encourage citizens to support the law enforcing agencies as far as reporting of crimes is concerned.

During slavery in the United States, advocates, such as James Henry Hammond, John Calhoun, and William Joseph Harper, utilized propaganda to justify the existence of the two classes in society since they argued that it would spur economic development.

Hammond drafted a speech, commonly referred to as Mudsill Speech of 1858, which was purely a propaganda statement encouraging individuals to be contented with the existing production system. To pro-slavery advocates, the change of the production system would destabilize society, as it would cause conflicts between the upper and the lower classes. This would be a great threat to democracy, the economy, the government, and the society in general.

The campaigners of slavery further observed that the lower class had always existed in history, as it served a major purpose of cushioning the ruling class. Hammond used the term mudsill in his speech to claim that the lower class was a foundation of society, as it engaged in nation building through provision of labor (Tindall and Shi 56). In his view, this would encourage the whites to move civilization forward and any attempt to bring radical changes would impede socio-economic and political development.

The views of pro-slavery advocates were not factual, but instead they were propaganda statements that aimed at justifying the existing mode of production at the time. Hammond encouraged slaves to continue offering free labor, as they were the important people in the production system. However, the reality was that slaves were never incorporated into the economic system and the few who participated in economic matters were incorporated as underdogs.

Slavery advocates insisted that the system eliminated barriers placed upon individuals that prevented them from enjoying their rights as American citizens. Hammond cautioned other rich individuals in the country who supported the rights of slaves that it was dangerous to involve the landless in political matters, such as voting and presenting their candidature during elections (Finkelman 27).

Involving slaves in political processes would lead to the tyranny of the multitude hence the best option was to enslave them, as they would not have the chance of changing the status quo. In the views of slavery supporters, the system was effective since it protected the interests of masters, slaves, and the entire society.

Democracy suggests that each individual should be allowed to enjoy his or her rights in society, including the right to take part in economic and political matters without interference. Therefore, slavery campaigners advanced a theory that was defective implying that their claims were simply propaganda statements aimed at subjugating and discriminating against slaves who were mostly blacks.

Douglass’s narrative presents some of the problems that slavery brought to the blacks in the south. Even though his ideas are mainly considered as propaganda, he presents information that would help slaves to realize their potentials in society. First, he criticizes slavery by observing that it has a damaging effect to the slaveholders, as well as the slaves.

The slavery system encourages a dishonest and reckless behavior among slaveholders to an extent that it damages their honored status. Based on this, he recommended that slavery was unnatural to all parties involved. For instance, slave owners were engaged in adultery and rape, which was a great threat to the wellbeing of slaves and their families. Douglass uses Sophia Auld as an example of an individual who had high moral standards, but slaveholding converted her to a demon.

Therefore, the view of Douglass on slavery is that it was an invalid system of production, which had affected the moral wellbeing of slave owners (Douglass 112). This implies that he was trying to convince slave owners to abandon the system, as it was affecting them as well. In trying to persuade slaveholders to abandon slavery, Douglass reinterpreted Christianity, terming the true religion as the Christianity of Christ while the kind of religion that slave owners practiced as the Christianity of the land.

Slave owners had immoral behavior and violent actions that were inconsistent with the provisions of Christianity (Tindall and Shi 93). Through this, he was trying to convince slaveholders to quit slavery and adopt a more acceptable system of production that would suit the tenets of Christianity.

The Objective of Propaganda

The main goal of any propaganda statement is to shape public opinion and change people’s views as regards to a particular subject or topic. During slavery in the United States, the views of southern plantation owners played a major role in advancing slavery in the country in the sense that many farmers believed abandoning it would be equivalent to giving blacks an undue advantage in the economy.

Additionally, many slave owners were convinced that giving the landless the right to vote would be detrimental to democracy. Several techniques of propaganda exist, but slavery supporters chose to employ two of these methods, one of them being half-truth and the other is deception.

Douglass supported the claims that slavery was degrading the culture of blacks. He noted that slave owners ensured the landless remained ignorant, as this would facilitate the maintenance of the status quo. However, he suggested that acquisition of knowledge is a step towards abandonment and resistance of slavery. Unlike pro-slavery advocates, Douglass used different techniques of propaganda, including operant conditioning and testimonials.

Works Cited

Cunningham, Stanley. The Idea of Propaganda: A Reconstruction. Westport: Praeger, 2002. Print.

Douglass, Fredrick. The Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass. New York: Cricket House Books, 2012. Print.

Finkelman, Paul. Slavery & the Law. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Print.

Tindall, George, and Shi, David. America: A Narrative History. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2013. Print.

Many historians pay close attention to the reasons why slavery persisted for a long time in some parts of the United States. Moreover, much attention is paid to the reasons why so many southerners defended this social institution, even though they did not belong to the so-called plantation aristocracy.

To a great extent, this outcome can be attributed to such factors to the influence of racist attitudes, the fear of violence or rebellion, and economic interests of many people who perceived the abolition of slavery as a threat to their welfare. To some degree, these factors contributed to the outbreak of the American Civil War that dramatically transformed the social and political life of the country. These are the main details that should be examined.

The persistent defense of slavery can be partly explained by the widespread stereotypes and myths which were rather popular in the South. For instance, one can mention the belief according to which the living conditions of slaves were much better, especially in comparison with European workers or those people who lived in the northern parts of the United States. These arguments were expressed by John Calhoun who regarded slavery as “a positive good” (1837). This statement implied that black people could even be satisfied with their subordinate status.

He said that under the rule of white people, slaves could enjoy more prosperity (Calhoun, 1837). These are some of the details that should not be disregarded. To some degree, this justification of slavery was based on the belief that black people were not self-sufficient. Therefore, one should not neglect the impact of racism on the worldviews and attitudes of many southerners who did not always question the propaganda which was imposed on them.

Overall, pro-slavery politicians such as John Calhoun believed the abolition of slavery could produce only detrimental results on various stakeholders, including black people. These are some of the main details that should be distinguished. One should keep in mind that many people living in the South did not pay much attention to the experiences of black slaves. They did not reflect on the cruel treatment of black people who were often dehumanized.

Additionally, it is important to examine the experiences of people who did not belong to the upper classes of the Southern society. Many of these people were farmers, and they were adversely affected by the competition with slave owners (Davidson et al., 2012). In many cases, their farms could be ruined in the course of this struggle. Moreover, many of them could not even afford a slave (Davidson et al., 2012). Nevertheless, they did not object to the existence of slavery as a social institution.

They believed that that the emancipation of slaves could eventually threaten their own existence. In particular, many of them were afraid of violence or rebellion. This is one of the reasons why they did not support the abolitionist movement. So, they could reconcile themselves with slavery, even though their own interests were significantly impaired. Secondly, they did not perceive black people as human beings who could deserve empathy or compassion. As a result, many of these people defended slavery and even fought for the interests of slave owners. This is one of the details should not be overlooked because it is important for understanding the cause of the civic conflict in the United States.

It should be noted that trans-Atlantic slave trade was abolished long before the Civil War in the United States (Oldfield, 2012). Moreover, they could prohibit slave trade within a state. Nevertheless, policy-makers could not easily abolish slavery as an institution, even though many people believed that this practice violated every ethical law. There were many interest groups that did not want to abolish slavery. These people believed that their investments in commerce, agriculture, or industry could be harmed by the abolition of slavery (Davidson et al., 2012).

Moreover, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, there were many people who owned hundreds of slaves. They believed that slavery had been critical for their economic prosperity. As a result, there was no legal support of the abolitionist movement in some parts of the United States. This tendency was particularly relevant if one speaks about the South in which the use of slave labor was often required. This is one of the details that should be distinguished.

On the whole, this discussion indicates that there were several barriers to the abolition of slavery in the South. Much attention should be paid to the influence of racist attitudes of many people who were firmly convinced that slaves could be deprived of their right to humanity. In their opinion, this practice was quite acceptable from an ethical viewpoint. Additionally, it is vital to remember about the influence about the use of propaganda that shaped the attitudes of many people. Finally, one should not forget about the economic interests of many people who regarded the abolitionist movement as a threat to their financial security. These are some of the major aspects that can be identified.

Reference List

Calhoun, J. (1837). Slavery a Positive Good.

Davidson, J., Delay, B., Herman, B., Leigh, C., & Lytle, M. (2012). US: A Narrative History Volume 1: To 1877. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Oldfield, J. (2012). British Anti-slavery. Web.

Introduction

Throughout history, various societies practiced slavery including the Muslim society. Prior to civilisation, slave trade was legal. Slaves were in the form of prisoners of war, individuals who were unable to pay their debts, women, and children. After the abolishment of the Atlantic slave trade, the Eastern slave trade increased.

The end of the trans-Atlantic slave trade did not bring freedom to slaves. On the contrary, it changed their destination to the Eastern parts. Even in the contemporary times when slavery has been banned entirely by other religions, Islam still practices it in the form of ‘bonded workers’ who cannot change their jobs due to debts that they owe their employers. This paper will look at the position of slavery in the Islamic society prior to civilisation and after civilisation.

Slavery before Islamic civilisation

Slavery in the Islamic society was a legal practice. Slaves were acquired through successful conquests (Jihads). As the Islam community expanded through conquests, thus extending its territories through the South-East Asia, Central Asia, and Africa among other regions, the number of the enslaved people kept on increasing (Mason 135). However, Muslims living in the Islamic states were protected from enslavement (Watkins 81). Therefore, the necessity of having more slaves pushed Muslims rulers to subdue more non-Islamic territories.

Prophet Muhammad participated in the selling, capturing, and owning of slaves (Goldenberg 447). After conquering a Jewish tribe, the Prophet executed all men and captured the women and children whom he divided amongst his people as their slaves (Goldenberg 448). Those captured during wars would become slaves by default.

A Muslim could also obtain slaves through gifting (Hammond 111). Prophet Muhammad received a Christian slave by the name Mary Copt as a gift from an Egyptian ruler (Hammond 114). These practices by Muhammad made it hard to abolish the slave trade in the Islamic society.

The Quran, which is the Holy book of the Islamic religion, played a key role in the grounding of the slave trade in the Muslim community. The book portrays the capturing of slaves in war as a right given by God. These slaves were to be considered as the spoils of war while women slaves were taken as concubines of the successful warriors (Ali 81). According to Clarence-Smith, Quran 23:1-6 grants “Muslim men sexual rights over their wives and those whom they possess” (293).

Other verses of the Quran also state that slave owners can use their slaves as their mode of payments for any penalties or debts that they incur. The Quran is ambivalent on the issue of slavery. However, looking closely it appears that the book encourages the practice as it clarifies that masters should treat their slaves appropriately. The hidden message here is that it is appropriate for Muslims to have slaves.

Slavery after Islamic civilisation

After the evolution of human rights and civilisation of the Muslim community, the slave trade was abolished. However, according to the Islamic laws, in some instances, slavery was allowed. With the civilisation of Muslims, the practice of slavery declined perhaps due to the enlightenment that came with this period.

Many Muslims shunned the practice of enslavement although some still carried out the practice albeit secretly. Socio-economic factors allowed some people to live under subjugation. After civilisation, Muslims started observing the Quran’s call for the treatment of slaves as human beings with some dignity. Therefore, slavery changed after civilisation whereby slaves were accommodated in the mainstream society as workers, with some rights, albeit limited.

In addition, the evolution of human rights and agitation from emancipationists was a key factor that influenced the abolishment of slave trade in the Islamic world. By 1964, open slave trade had been abolished in most Muslim countries and Muslim leaders had come out openly to condemn the practice (Lovejoy 87). However, the public denouncing of slavery by the Muslim society did not deter the fact that most Muslim countries still practiced slavery albeit privately.

The existence of Sharia laws that allow slavery made it hard to abolish slavery in the Islam world completely. Acts by Prophet Mohammad of participating in slave trade largely deterred the total abolishment of slavery in the Islam world. Some Muslim sheikhs came out openly and stated that slavery was approved of by Allah in the Quran and practiced by the Allah’s prophet, and thus it is part of Islam and it could not be renounced.

In addition, some Muslim leaders after the civilisation had come from slavery backgrounds. Therefore, to them the practice was normal, and thus they continued having slaves. Moreover, some leaders came from the military where they were used to conquering cities and taking slaves. Therefore, after the Islamic civilisation, slavery continued albeit subtly.

Conclusion

Civilisation in the Muslim society, which led them to the embracing of modern human rights, caused a shift in how Muslims treated non-Muslims. With time, the slave trade was outlawed and considered as a gross violation of human rights. In a bid to keep up with the modern society, Muslims are against slavery even though some propagate it, but secretly.

Works Cited

Ali, Kecia. Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. Print.

Clarence-Smith, William. Islam and the Abolition of Slavery, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.

Goldenberg, David. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Print.

Hammond, Peter. Slavery, Terrorism & Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, Cape Town: Xulon Press, 2010. Print.

Lovejoy, Paul. Slavery on the Frontiers of Islam, Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2003. Print.

Mason, Mathew. “The Barbary Pirates, Islamic Slavery and the West.” Journal of Religious studies 30.2 (2006): 133-138. Print.

Watkins, Richard. Slavery: Bondage Throughout History, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001. Print.

There is no use denying the fact that such issues as tolerance, humanism, and democracy are proclaimed to be the most important and valuable nowadays. People should act in a way that respects the peculiarities of culture and mentality of other men. However, it should be said that this recognition came after a great number of attempts to prove the idea that all people are equal and have the same rights.

For decades depressed groups of the population have been struggling with society in order to prove their right to be taken as common people. Moreover, there were certain personalities whose contribution to the development of equality and tolerance could hardly be overestimated as their activity made the current stage of progress possible. Sojourner Truth is one of these personalities.

To begin with, it should be said that Sojourner Truth is a famous African American abolitionist and womens rights activist (“Sojourner Truth” para. 1). She was born in a period when slavery was not abolished, and black people lived under horrible conditions. Being a slave since her childhood, Truth realized all difficulties of the life of a person deprived of any rights.

She was sold many times, moreover, her masters humiliated and tortured her (Truth 24). She had no right for love, as the master of her beloved one was against their relations, moreover, her children did not belong to her as she was just a slave. However, after the famous decision to give freedom to slaves, she became free, though, very soon, she realized that it is just a formal step as segregation remained in the society of the USA. That is why she decided to fight against discrimination.

It is obvious that her views on the problem were formed under the influence of her past. Realizing from the first hands that slaves do not have any rights and, moreover, that even free black people are taken as outcasts, Sojourner Truth wanted to improve their state and strive for the maintenance of the law, which guaranteed equal rights for slaves. Her first great achievement was the lawsuit connected with her son, who was illegally sold to another owner. Truth wanted to obtain justice and took the issue to court.

After the process, which continued for a month, Truth was given her son back. The importance of this case could not be overestimated. It was the first time when a black person claimed the white one and won. Truth showed people that it was possible to struggle for their rights and that they should do it.

Being sure that people should be persuaded to struggle for their rights, Truth joined the Northampton Association of Education and Industry, which main aim was promotion of pacifism, tolerance and womens rights, and started to travel around the country telling people about the possibility to become really free and obtain equality.

However, it was not the only way in which Truth fought for the rights of people. In several years she joined George Thompson, who was a famous abolitionist and traveled with him, giving a great number of different lectures. Besides, she is also famous for her speech called Aint I a woman? Which was delivered at Ohio Womens Rights Convention in which she described the state and conditions under which black people and women had to live and called them to struggle for their rights? (Philips-Anderson 24)

Nevertheless, it should be said that Truth became popular in that period of time, and her ideas obtained more and more popularity. Mainly due to her activity desegregation of streetcars started (“Sojourner Truth: Slavery Abolitionist and Womens Suffragist” para. 5) as she rode there, trying to show people that she had this right. Besides, her two meetings with the Presidents of the USA can be taken as evidence of her significance and influence on society of that time.

She also helped to recruit soldiers at the Period of the Civil war as she wanted to protect ideas of tolerance and humanism. Another important step of her is her attempt to vote in presidential elections. The main aim of this step was to show that black people should also be given the right to participate in elections and chose the future of their own state (Painter 98). She was not allowed to do it, however, he attempts made people think that this privilege could be obtained.

With this in mind, having analyzed information connected with the life and activity of Sojourner Truth, it is possible to make a certain conclusion. It should be said that she contributed a lot to the development of abolitionism in the USA (Butler para. 23). Being born in slavery, she knew perfectly what it meant to be a slave and tried to change the existing situation.

Moreover, a great number of her ideas were rather innovative as a society still lived under the influence of ideas of the natural dominance of white people. Resting on these facts, it is possible to say that Sojourner Truth promoted the evolution of peoples mentality and made the advent of the epoch of tolerance and humanism possible.

Works Cited

Butler, Mary. Sojourner Truth. A Life and Legacy of Faith. Web.

Painter, Nell. Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. 1997. Print.

Philips-Anderson, Michael. “Sojourner Truth, “Address at the womans rights convention in Akron, Ohio.” (1851)“. Voices of Democracy. 7 (2012): 21-46. Web.

Sojourner Truth. Web.

Sojourner Truth: Slavery Abolitionist and Womens Suffragist. Web.

Truth, Sojourner. The Narrative of Sojourner Truth. Boston: The Author. 1850. Web.

The United States Constitution that was created on September 17, 1787, during the Constitution Convention was strongly a pro-slavery document. The framers of the constitution did not tackle clearly the issue of slavery and they were compelled to make a temporary compromise in order to unite the states in the country.

Although the framers of the document knew that there was a problem appertaining to allowing slavery to thrive, their hands were tied as they were concentrating on a bigger problem of forming a new united country. Thus, they were rather vague on the matter and did not deliberate upon it deeply. As a result, until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the 1787 constitution was pro slavery by both ‘intention and effect.’

In the 1787 U.S. Constitution, there is no mention of the word slavery. However, in the eighty-four clauses of the legal document passed at the Constitutional Convention, six are in fact unswervingly related to the issue of slavery that was being practiced in the United States during the eighteenth century.

In addition, five others had inferences to slavery that were discussed during the historic Constitutional Convention. The heart of the supporting nature of the 1787 U.S. Constitution in regards to slavery is found Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3.

It states “representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons” (Gales and Seaton, 1310).

Intentionally, the framers of the constitution ignored the pernicious “S” word in this clause. Consequently, this gave the slaveholding states a reason to rejoice as their power and influence would be enhanced according to the increase in number of slaves they owned.

This was the situation since the clause was concerned with the number of representatives elected to congress; that is, if two states had the same number of free persons but one had slaves, then the state with slaves would inevitably get more representatives and thus more political power. Since the slaveholding states were given more political power based on the number of slaves they had, this gave them the incentive to enslave more people.

Article I section 9 propagated the business of trading in slaves. This is because it denied Congress the power to stop the business for twenty years from the time it was passed into law. It states, “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty maybe imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person” (Gales and Seaton, 1310).

The word person(s) in the clause is used in reference to the slaves who were taken from different parts of the world into the United States. Article IV works in association with the idea of depriving Congress the power to stop slave trade by providing the rare protection of making the amendment of the idea a near impossibility.

In Slavery’s Constitution, historian David Waldstreicher argues that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 accommodated the practice of slavery in the U.S. Waldstreicher gives an analysis on how the makers of the Constitution debated, bargained, and wrestled over the issue of slavery at the Constitutional Convention. He notes that their efforts to reach a compromise on the issue gave rise to two different aspects of the politics of slavery that were intended to perpetuate it (Waldstreicher, 1).

These are slavery as a type of authority over some particular individuals and as an economic institution. In reference to the famous three-fifths clause, Waldstreicher maintains that “all the other persons” in the phrase refers to slaves and this allotment was meant to increase the influence of the slave-owners. To further support that the Constitutional Convention accommodated slavery, he observes that the debate to pass the legal document with the clauses supporting slavery was not condemned by the delegates from the Deep South.

He adds that the lack of discussions on the issue in some states, such as North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, were an effort to accommodate the Constitution. These states seemed satisfied with the insufficiency pro-slavery Constitution that the Convention had formulated.

During the making of the Constitution, there was divided opinion between the supporters and opponents on the issue of slavery. As aforementioned, based on the three-fifths compromise, the supporters of slavery wanted to maintain their power and influence in the country because they could send more representatives to Congress and fail to remit direct taxes as desired.

In addition, the slaveholders were looking at slaves as the biggest factor of production. They offered free labor and the people who had huge plantations greatly reduced their cost of production. Because of the ‘benefits’ that the slaves provided, the delegates of the Convention never wanted to regulate slavery.

On the other hand, the opponents of slavery argued that one of the principles that led to the establishment of the United States of America was the notion that “All men were created equal”; thus, the sanctioning of slavery was hypocritical. Furthermore, they argued that the representation of African Americans as “three-fifths’ of a person was demeaning to their human condition as everyone is united by the common fabric of humanity.

The supporters of Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 argued that the clause is anti-slavery as it gives the states with slaves the opportunity to send more representatives in Congress as compared to the states without slaves. However, the opponents of the clause maintained that slaves were not allowed to vote; thus, the congressional representatives could not represent their interests as they were regarded to be just a form of “chattel” or property without basic freedoms.

James Madison viewed slavery as a ‘necessary evil’ that needed to be eradicated from the United States. In his writings in the Federalist Papers, he enshrined the notion of the Bill of Rights that would accord all the slaves in the country their rights to be treated humanely.

As one of the leading delegates of the Convention, he argued that it would not be right to state plainly in the Constitution the “idea that there could be property in men”; consequently, the words “slave” and “slavery” did not appear there. The pernicious words were replaced with euphemistic terminology in the sections of the Constitution that were tackling the issue of the slavery system.

In the Federalist papers he authored, Madison explained that the institution of slavery was wrong and regrettable as it oppressed innocent victims, undermined the moral integrity of the slaves, bred contempt for honest labor, and encouraged idle masters to indulge in their worst passions so as to practice tyranny. Madison particularly tackles the issue in Federalist Paper No. 38 in which he says:

“The existing Congress, without any such control, can make treaties which they themselves have declared, and most of the States have recognized, to be the supreme law of the land. Is the importation of slaves permitted by the new Constitution for twenty years? By the old it is permitted forever” (Madison, para.9).

On the other hand, Waldstreicher attacked the views of Madison concerning slavery because he demonstrated mixed opinion on the issue. Waldstreicher points out that like most of the southern delegates to the Convention, Madison was a slaveholder; thus, his views on what was referred to as “peculiar institution” of slavery were deeply conflicting. As much as deep down he knew that the practice was evil, Madison did not see how the economy of the South could grow without the much-needed labor from the slaves.

Waldstreicher points out that Madison could not envision how whites and blacks could possibly live together; therefore, he proposed for the establishment of a different black settlement in a different place from the U.S. Nonetheless, despite their differences on the issue of slavery, Waldstreicher and Madison wanted slavery to be abolished completely from the U.S. Worth mentioning in this perspective, Madison proposed for the adoption of the Bill of Rights that eventually led to the abolition of slavery.

In conclusion, it is evident that the 1787 Constitution was proslavery. On drafting the document, the delegates had the opportunity to put an end to the practice of slavery and accord the blacks full citizenship under the new Constitution. However, the delegates threw cards on the table and compromised to protect the slaveholders. Thus, for about twenty years, the blacks were denied their rights as they were supposed to provide free labor for the growth of the economy of the young nation.

Works Cited

Gales, Joseph, and Seaton, William W. Register for debated in congress,…. Washington: United States Congress, 1825-37. Print.

Madison, James. “The Federalist Papers No.38.” US Government Info. The New York Times Company, 2011. Web.

Waldstreicher, David. Slavery’s Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification. New York: Hill and Wang; 2009. Print.

The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the United States

The rise of the slave trade in America was first noted in 526 as a result of Spanish explorers. The Spanish explorers kidnapped Africans during their explorations across the continent and shipped them to United States and England (Schneider & Schneider, 222).

United States had extensive plantations of cotton, sugarcane, coffee, tobacco and construction of rail. Thus, lack of enough human labor to increase productivity attracted their interests in founding cheap labor across the world. Africa and Asia was seen as a potential hub of fulfilling their interests (Schneider & Schneider, 53).

This was because, at these periods, these continents lacked institutional forms of government, poverty; hence it was easy to bribe or buy the confidence of the existing administrations with money or gifts. The strategy succeeded to a large extends, and thousands, mostly African slaves were shipped to the United States.

According to Thomas (670), in America, the slaves were held by whites but in some occasions Native Americans also benefitted in the trade. During this period, slaves were subjected to harsh conditions, this included; long working hours, less pay and lack of compensation, restriction of movement and freedom of association. This was to enrich the culture of fear and obedience to their masters.

However, the fall of slavery was a result of several factors. One of factors was the American civil war. One point prompting the American civil war was the evolution of abolition activities. The Northern parts of US were polarized against slavery (Thomas, 780). Sympathy started to develop for abolitionists and against slavery.

This coincided with the passage of Fugitive Slave Act by US legislature that made individual accountable for protecting slaves. The slaves also started to protest for an end to slavery. Slaves escaped to non-slave regions through the Underground Railroad systems which saw the creation of the free dominion states (Thomas, 654).

The victory of the slave union in the American civil war led to the declaration of illegality to slavery. Besides, the women rights and abolitionist groups lead by a liberated black, Fredrick Douglass and Williams Lloyds viewed the social issue and evil linked to slavery, hence; they organized antislavery movements to pressurized the government to end slavery (Thomas, 753).

The Effects of Slavery on the Political, Social, and Economic Structures

According to Donnelly (103) the vast plantations of sugarcane, cotton, coffee and tobacco in the United States required increased human labor. The increase in demand for human labor encouraged the Americans to trade in slaves to supplement this labor force.

Thus, slaves were able to work on the plantations effectively, working on a large area with limited time. This increased the profits earned from the crops and the mines.

The blacks’ slaves were active in manual labor, and since most originated from an agricultural background; they were able to handle better duties bestowed to them. They came with a rich understanding of tropical and plantation agriculture from their native countries (Donnelly, 304).

Besides, blacks were very strong and immune to tropical diseases such as malaria and yellow fever. The high level of immunity to these diseases made African slaves very suitable for tropical labor.

The increasing intermarriages between the white women and the black men were facilitated by disproportionate in the ratio of the 3 African male to 1 African female (Eltis, 223). The intermarriages resulted to a homogeneous culture, and the strong influence of racial discrimination started to deteriorate.

The children who were produced from such a marriage were considered to be free, although the whites’ women were considered slaves. The common law which existed made Africans to qualify automatically to slavery. There were serious punishments for anyone marrying from a different race. Slavery led to the establishment of laws which declared the practice illegal.

Basically, the Americans believed in white supremacy and disregarded blacks as being inferior. This hypothesis still holds in some areas.

For instance, to instill discipline in blacks, they were forced to conclude that; the whites had greater powers, the blacks were created to be based on whites always, blacks should never disobey a white, blacks were to be treated sternly and blacks should always know they are below the whites in all aspects of life (Eltis, 207).

Works Cited

Donnelly, F William. American Economic Growth: The Historic Challenge, New York: Ardent Media, 1973.

Eltis, David. The Rise of African Slavery in the Americas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Schneider, Dorothy & Schneider, J Carl. Slavery in America, New York: Infobase Publishing, 2006.

Thomas, Hugh (1997). The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440- 1870, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.