During the Civil War, an argument prolonged across the world about slavery. This topic became commonly known during the same time as wage labor arguments. Some people who worked with wage labor, said both, slavery and wage labor, owned the freedom and dignity of the workers.
Abolitionists, (those who were against the pro-slavery agreement), did not cooperate with wage labor opponents because they believed that slavery was substantially worse than wage labor. President Lincoln agreed with these abolitionists because in his perspective, the wage laborers had more of an opportunity to gain freedom rather than slaves because wage laborers were capable of escaping easier. Labor advocates desired abolitionists to expand their conception of sovereignty for the anti-wage labor cause. However, while most anti-slavery politicians did not do that, free labor remained a forceful power for the North in the Civil War, involving not only wage labor, but also to slavery and free soil in the West.
Pro-slavery supporters discussed that if everyone of the slaves were set free, there would be a widespread of unemployment and chaos. In their terminology, chaos meant uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. Those who were pro-slavery began engaged in an argument which was led by the Abolitionists. The pro-slavery movement used references including history, religious values (bible), economics, legitimacy, common good, and sympathy, to add accuracy to their arguments. Those who wanted to keep slavery argued that the dramatic end to the slave lifestyle would have had a profound and murderous economic influence in the South where the dependence on slave labor was the institution of their country. They argued for the extension of the status quo, which was providing prosperity and strength for the lower class and for all free people who relished the reward of the slave society. Those in agreement of pro-slavery also stated that slavery had occurred throughout history and that it was part of human nature. They mentioned the Greeks, the Romans, and the English owned slaves. They said that in the Bible, Abraham possessed slaves. They had pointed out in the bible, many references where it had contained the subject of slavery. They noted one of the commands bestowed by God through the Ten Commandments, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's…man or female slave...” (Exodus 20 17-18). In the New Testament, they cited that Paul gave back a fugitive slave to his master. However, they preached that even though slavery was commonly known all over the Roman world, Jesus Christ had never said it was wrong. Those in favor of slavery argued that the society was delightful, and that it bestowed Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. In this argument, slavery was a good thing for the imprisoned. People who agreed with pro-slavery argued that slaves were healthier and well cared after when compared with the poverty of Europe and the recruits in the Northern states. They said that their masters would look after and maintain them when they were ill and elderly, unlike those who were unemployed and had to strive to care for themselves without a helping hand.
During the Kansas-Nebraska disputes, the pro-slavery movement collided with the free soil movement. Although the Missouri Compromise limited slavery in some areas, many others sought for an area open to admired sovereignty, where the residents of the land would choose whether they wanted to be a slave or free state. Lincoln disagreed with this policy, however, on distinctly moral grounds. He briefly stated how there is no moral right in correlation with making a man a slave.
However, numerous free-soilers had distinct intentions for wanting the sections of territories to remain free. One of the reasons was the discrimination against African-Americans; they plainly did not feel like sharing their area with blacks. Some slave-masters believed that African Americans were biologically lower standard to their masters. During the 1800s, this argument was relatively critical. Slave territories established a threat to the free labor society. Without free territories in the west, wage laborers would not have any expectation of traveling west to buy an inexpensive farm and settle in. The North and South attempted to negotiate on the issue by respecting each other’s regulations. For instance, the North gave back fugitive slaves, and the South respected the constitutional rights of free African-Americans, but the majority of these superior deeds ended with the Dred Scott decision. This assessment made slavery national and liberty private, for it enforced free states to distinguish slavery. Hence, pro-slavery arguments were brought attention to the court that every black-not just slaves-had no authorized position as a person in our courts-they were possessions, and the Constitution confined the slave’s rights as a possession of their master. At that point, it then became obvious that America would not manage to survive half-slave, and half free. Therefore, when a society constructs revolving around any institution, just as the South did around slavery, it will gather up as much information as possible to support the key elements of its argument. The southerners remained very confident when voicing their opinions on the case even as the political tension escalated because they believed they had collected valuable pieces which were accurate. Their confidence is what lured citizens closer to the Civil War as well as being more engaged in more historical events.
My opinion is that I believe that one should have a voice to choose which side tends to be more accurate and wise especially in a topic like slavery. The Abolitionists and the pro-slavery groups are of great importance in the history of the Civil War and of Slavery. Those, in these two different movements, had tough decisions to make. They had the choice of embracing slavery or to be against slavery. In addition, they, as citizens, had a decision to voice their opinions why they felt slaves should or not be slaves or to be silent. Though they had many choices to make, they would have to be very wise when stating their beliefs because their decisions would change the world forever as well as the lives of others. As far as the argument goes, I think that every man deserves better than slavery. In my viewpoint, I believe every man was born free; thus, that makes them equal, under God. Though the defenders of slavery said Jesus never stated that slavery was wrong, I do not assume that that is correct. For in the bible, it states, “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 4:3 24-30). God never liked slavery because he, like myself, believed everyone was created in his image and were equal. He also showed how he disliked slavery by using Moses, as a messenger, to lead the Israelites out of cruel bondage and slavery of Egypt to a land filled with milk and honey. Many aspects of the bible contained slavery but that was what happened during the days before Christ. If I engaged in this argument, between anti-slavery and pro-slavery, I would have chose anti-slavery because I believe no man or woman should be forced to labor involuntarily for that of another human being by being a slave.
This is Preview only. If you need the solution of this assignment, please send us email with the complete assignment title: ProfessorKamranA@gmail.com
