Well, I've a debate to do in class next week. Pro-slavery, in the style of the 1800's American South. The trouble is, the only stuff I can find is against slavery, both moral(which I can;t use, anyhow) and economic.
Wadayathink?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Research in academic journals.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Pro-slavery, eh? hmmm. You'd offend everyone in the class with some of the arguments they used like- slavery is the only place for them, god mandated slavery in some bible verse they'd be wild without slavery.. stuff like that... they gave you a hard assignment, dude... See if you can find first person accounts from slave owners somewhere and people who were against abolitionists and start off with a disclaimer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As hard as this is, if you put your all into it you will be a much better debater and critical thinker for it.
You will have to find some more in-depth sources than these; the book might be a good place to start.
If you can truly understand an abhorant position and still hold true to your own principles, you will have a good chance to be able to change people's minds for the better some day.
Good luck!
Dagonee
Posted by Snuffles (Member # 4332) on :
::growls about homework::
grrrr!
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
are you allowed to make any modifications to the styles of slavery? like saying no beating, and no seperating families until children are a certain age? or do you have to defend it just as it was?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I think it's the book of Philemon (in the Bible) that has been used in the past as a defence of slavery. An 1800s slaveholder would probably be familiar with this passage.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Gone With the Wind probably wouldn't float as a resource . . . unless you go at in terms of fictional constructs of our great and glorious past . . . ?
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
if you can, limit the terms. Chose defensible positions, don't try to defend every aspect of slavery. In your first speech, lay out which aspects of slavery you're defending, and try to define out as many of the worst parts as possible.
Posted by Jeni (Member # 1454) on :
There was a lot of "scientific" research done at the time to prove that africans were significantly inferior mentally. Some guy did a bunch of skull measurements, for example, and concluded based on those that slaves weren't intelligent enough to live on their own in a civilized society and that they were so inferior in so many ways that there just wasn't anything wrong with them being owned by white men.
I'd suggest trying to find information on that kind of research. Obviously it doesn't hold water today, but it gives you more of an idea of what people at the time believed. I'll see if I can remember anything more specific. --- Edit: Names for you to look up - Samuel Morton, Josiah Nott, and Louis Agassiz.
[ February 04, 2004, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Jeni ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You know, I read this thread earlier and then forgot what it was about. I submit this as evidence that it is not interesting. Or that I had too much MSG with my dinner.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
Try to find some of George Fitzhugh's stuff. He was a Southern planter who wrote a remarkably easy to read diatribe comparing Northern free labor with the Southern plantation economy. Naturally, he found the latter far superior because it eliminated all of the economic and social problems the Industrial Revolution was causing in the North (ie, child labor, abject poverty, people starving, etc). I have my undergrads read some of his stuff and attack it; they tend to grasp his arguments pretty easily.
Economics is a good key idea to think about as well.
[EDIT: some how I missed Matt's post... sigh, it's still a good point though, especially now that it's been mentioned twice ]
Hobbes
[ February 04, 2004, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
In reading some older texts I often encounter the argument that, while slavery is awful, its immediate abolition would have left freed slaves in desperate economic conditions, with no education or any skills except the ones they learned as slaves, forcing them to go right back into the same work under terms that were no better. No doubt you can locate some texts that argue that case...although I haven't been able to just yet.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think that too many here are arguing what the Southerners argued from a Northerner's viewpoint. The opposition always liked to make the most egregious arguments the main arguments.
However, my admittedly limited research on Southern arguments rested on a fear of economic devistation if slavery was abolished. It is true they used the Bible and inferiority arguments to justify black slavery, but that isn't the arguements for having slavery to start with. They reasoned that the cheap labor and continual fountain of a new workforce allowed them to maintain a large plantation with respectable to rich outcome. Without that the Southern states argued their livelihood would be destroyed and ignorance and poverty would be the result. Slavery was considered both historically justified (Slavery has always been in existance as long as civilization has) and necessary to the health of a prosperous community.
Interesting enough, although getting rid of slavery is a good thing, what the Southerners warned about did happen. They lost all economic advantages and blacks were (and some argue still are) at poverty level with very few advantages to get beyond subsistance living.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I won a debate once defending the slavery position in history class. I challenged the New England representative to justify why Blacks were treated as second-class citizens in the North.
If the North cared so much about freeing them in the South, why are Blacks treated as second-class citizens there? Why doesn't the North have affirmative action or reparations?
There are a lot of holes in my case, but if you are a good performer, this is a good first argument to put your opponent on the defensive. Let the focus switch to why the North is still being racist, highlight the fact that the differences between the Northern and Southern states is really a matter of degree.
Then hit them with the argument that the Northern state's protest against slavery is really a hidden economic agenda.
Edited to add: I'm not a racist, I only played one in history class.
[ February 04, 2004, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by Theorist B (Member # 6173) on :
I realize that economics has been pointed out, but really that is pretty much the key without getting in to the bible, morals and ethics.
Look in to what kind of effect it would have on the south if slavery were removed. It basicly destroyed the south for along time. There was alot of restructuring of how the whole plantation system worked as well as trying to catch up with the north industry wise.
After the Civil War the south worked for years to become economicly stable. There are some good texts that talk about it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would argue that the South is still not economically stable. Whole lists of jokes are made about this.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man is a fairly detailed analysis of the scientific arguments used to prop up slavery in the past. He debunks the faulty science pretty thoroughly, of course, but knowing both sides of the argument will be helpful for you.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]![[Smile]](smile.gif)