To President James Buchanan I am here to ask you “why fix something that’s not broken?” Understanding that you are coming up on your re-election; however, since you are a Northerner you might not know why slavery is deeply rooted within the south. There are many reasons for this, down south, slavery is a way of life for economic standards and has been a way of life for many generations. There are also other justifications as to why to keep slavery down in the south. The justifications to keep slavery in the south are for racial justifications, economical and religious justifications.
Within the deep south it is of the opinion of slaveholders that blacks are different compared to a white man those being; blacks are built different than …show more content…
Historically speaking, slavery has been an outstanding source of free labor that has benefited many countries that had slaves in the past. Edmund Ruffin wrote that “The reasons for this universal early existence of slavery, and domestic or individual slavery, (except among the most ignorant and savage tribes,) can be readily deduced from the early conditions of society.” (p. 61). This exhibit that slavery can work and has proven to be effective within a society. Being no differently to the effects of slavery in the south. Lawyer James Henry Hammond said in his Mudsill Speech pointed out that there was double of the amount of exports of cotton, tobacco, lumber, rice and other minor articles between the years of 1856 and 1857. Reports of “There is no doubt that we sent to the North $40,000,000 in addition; but suppose the amount to be $35,000,000, it will give us a surplus production of $220,000,000. But the recorded exports of the South now are greater than the whole exports of the United States in any year before 1856.” (p. 84). This meant that the South could go without planting any cotton for a couple years and it still would be able to sustain itself economically (p. 85). So when a senator from New York insisted that slavery had to abolish slavery, Hammond spoke of the differences of the workers labor up North. Saying that unlike the white laborers that were hired for that day and wouldn’t be cared for and …show more content…
Buchanan you might be aware that the South have a deep connection with religion and the Bible. In which the South believes that God has given rights about slavery. Moreover, that De Bow reviewed the Bible and stated that in “the Bible teaches clearly and conclusively that the holding of slaves is right; and if so, no deduction from general principles can make it wrong, if that book is true.” (p. 109). Slavery wasn’t an issue for the people in the bible as an illustration, it is noted that Isaac while having flocks and herds also had servants that he owned (p. 109). In addition, Jacob’s sons sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for silver, even then it was told that slavery was common and a way of life in Egypt (p. 109). It is true that God did send Moses to free the Israelites from slavery in Egypt; however, there are also other descendants of Moses that had slaves and it deemed acceptable. In addition, De Bow’s argued that, “Thus, we see that at a time when the Israelites had no slaves, but were themselves, in a manner, fugitive slaves, and when they had no use for slaves, being wanderers in a wilderness, and fed by God’s own hand he provided laws for bringing in, buying, inheriting and governing, slaves, in the land unto which they were to be brought at the end of forty years.” (p. 113). In this case, it is said that after the Israelites were freed from their slavery, they went on to owning slaves themselves. So despite the Moses argument, God has never claimed that
Within the deep south it is of the opinion of slaveholders that blacks are different compared to a white man those being; blacks are built different than …show more content…
Historically speaking, slavery has been an outstanding source of free labor that has benefited many countries that had slaves in the past. Edmund Ruffin wrote that “The reasons for this universal early existence of slavery, and domestic or individual slavery, (except among the most ignorant and savage tribes,) can be readily deduced from the early conditions of society.” (p. 61). This exhibit that slavery can work and has proven to be effective within a society. Being no differently to the effects of slavery in the south. Lawyer James Henry Hammond said in his Mudsill Speech pointed out that there was double of the amount of exports of cotton, tobacco, lumber, rice and other minor articles between the years of 1856 and 1857. Reports of “There is no doubt that we sent to the North $40,000,000 in addition; but suppose the amount to be $35,000,000, it will give us a surplus production of $220,000,000. But the recorded exports of the South now are greater than the whole exports of the United States in any year before 1856.” (p. 84). This meant that the South could go without planting any cotton for a couple years and it still would be able to sustain itself economically (p. 85). So when a senator from New York insisted that slavery had to abolish slavery, Hammond spoke of the differences of the workers labor up North. Saying that unlike the white laborers that were hired for that day and wouldn’t be cared for and …show more content…
Buchanan you might be aware that the South have a deep connection with religion and the Bible. In which the South believes that God has given rights about slavery. Moreover, that De Bow reviewed the Bible and stated that in “the Bible teaches clearly and conclusively that the holding of slaves is right; and if so, no deduction from general principles can make it wrong, if that book is true.” (p. 109). Slavery wasn’t an issue for the people in the bible as an illustration, it is noted that Isaac while having flocks and herds also had servants that he owned (p. 109). In addition, Jacob’s sons sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for silver, even then it was told that slavery was common and a way of life in Egypt (p. 109). It is true that God did send Moses to free the Israelites from slavery in Egypt; however, there are also other descendants of Moses that had slaves and it deemed acceptable. In addition, De Bow’s argued that, “Thus, we see that at a time when the Israelites had no slaves, but were themselves, in a manner, fugitive slaves, and when they had no use for slaves, being wanderers in a wilderness, and fed by God’s own hand he provided laws for bringing in, buying, inheriting and governing, slaves, in the land unto which they were to be brought at the end of forty years.” (p. 113). In this case, it is said that after the Israelites were freed from their slavery, they went on to owning slaves themselves. So despite the Moses argument, God has never claimed that