First off, one of the ways that you could defend the rights of slaveholders is thinking what happens if there was an end. The slave economy would have had crashed the economy because the slaves were the ones who kept it up. The cotton economy would collapse. The tobacco crop would dry in the fields. So, since the right of a slaveholder as it says in "Rights of Slave Owners" is that they "claimed ownership over human beings",blacks were considered property, they could do whatever they wanted with their "property". They wanted to get things done. The government supported it because the economy was great. So much work was getting done, why would the government not support it?
The gun control law can be defended because if you compare a slave to a child (as people thing that they are the superior to their child), well we don't let children go around and carry guns (but then again they wouldn't know when or why to shoot someone). In the article, it says, "This gun control provision only …show more content…
When someone loses their property, it makes sense to return it to the rightful owner. So as slaves were property, I understand how the slaveholders would want them back. The government participated in the law because they would want their slave to get back to work and make more money for them. While reading these articles, it seemed pretty clear that the government wanted the money, and would permit slavery to get it. Because once slavery started it was going to be hard to stop it, since they were the foundation of the economy. I think that slaveholders can not be defended, just as slavery can't. There are many reasons and arguments to defend slavery and slave holders, but, I don't think slavery will ever be correct, or just. I will also add what people could do to defend slavery, just to expand