Background to the Development of Pro Slavery Ideology
1. Read the above link and list the three pillars that supported slavery in the eyes of Southerners.
2. Read this excerpt from John C. Calhoun's speech in 1837:
"...
However sound the great body of the non-slaveholding States are at
present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those
who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly
one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile
nation ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. By
the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become,
finally, two people. It is impossible under the deadly hatred which must
spring up between the two great nations, if the present causes are
permitted to operate unchecked, that we should continue under the same
political system. The conflicting elements would burst the Union
asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it together. Abolition and
the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union I openly proclaim
it–and the sooner it is known the better. The former may now be
controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of man to
arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot, surrender
our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two
races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the
peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching
the country in blood, and extirpating one or the other of the races. Be
it good or bad, [slavery] has grown up with our society and
institutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be
to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting,
even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races
in the slaveholding States is an evil:–far otherwise; I hold it to be a
good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue
to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal
to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the
dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized
and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually.
In the meantime, the white or European race, has not degenerated. It
has kept pace with its brethren in other sections of the Union where
slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison; but I appeal to
all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence,
patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which
adorn our nature.
But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of
civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by
color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are
brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States
between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good. I feel
myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and
interests of those I represent are involved. I hold then, that there
never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one
portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of
the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne
out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but, if it were, it
would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth
of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show
by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor
it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing
classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and
gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal
contrivances of modern. I might well challenge a comparison between them
and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of
the African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say
with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the
laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind
attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his
condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized
portions of Europe–look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on
one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind
superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the
forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse. But I
will not dwell on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political;
and here I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two
races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war,
forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and
stable political institutions. It is useless to disguise the fact. There
is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization,
a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the
South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this
conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of
the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that
of the North. . . . Surrounded as the slaveholding States are with such
imminent perils, I rejoice to think that our means of defense are
ample, if we shall prove to have the intelligence and spirit to see and
apply them before it is too late. All we want is concert, to lay aside
all party differences and unite with zeal and energy in repelling
approaching dangers. Let there be concert of action, and we shall find
ample means of security without resorting to secession or disunion. I
speak with full knowledge and a thorough examination of the subject, and
for one see my way clearly. . . . I dare not hope that anything I can
say will arouse the South to a due sense of danger; I fear it is beyond
the power of mortal voice to awaken it in time from the fatal security
into which it has fallen."
3. What does Calhoun add to the above arguments you read about supporting slavery.
4. What do you think of his arguments?
