proving that slaves will not stand for the treatment they have been receiving. This was the same master who tore off his clothes like a piercing tiger and whipped him with several lashes until his sticks were worn out during the incident when he sent Douglass to fetch some woods from the bush and Douglas has spent so much time struggling with the wood. Mentioned was also made about a powerful statement questioning the authenticity of the type of Christianity practiced by slave holding states and the religious hypocrisy of slave masters and quote on the page ‘109 of the Appendix ‘ “ what I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slave holding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity
…show more content…
They viewed abolitionist’s states as hypocrites, betrayals of the long standing surviving and economically workable law of the land which is slavery. People like John C. Calhoun one of the important figures of pro slavery politicians towards the fugitive slave law of 1850, stood before the US senate insisting “That South Carolina will lead the way in defending its rights to hold slaves. He went on as far as arguing that “the federal government has no right to touch the institution he argues and defend, warning that the fact that abolitionists controlled the press, education and pulpit may bring about a civil war if not contained.” He threatened. slave masters argues that we take care of our slaves, we feed them and as long as they continue to provide food for their slaves, they don’t see any other fundamental rights slaves needs since they are considered less than humans in anyways. So it’s like having a Dog who is non-human, but all you can do, provide him with food and he follows your orders probably slave’s animals receive far more better …show more content…
James Hendry Hammond, a plantation owner, an Attorney and politician from South Carolina argues that “Cotton is a King” asserting that “a war on Cotton would be suicidal for the northern economy and thus calling the abolitionists bluff. He taunts that their economic hypocrisy, opposition to slavery but making money hand over fist off slavery and cotton.” The abolitionists argues that “The enslavement of the Africans was in violation of the law of nature; that it was wrong in principles, socially and morally but politically and economically beneficial to the slave holding states. The slave holding states argues back that “Our government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas, its foundations are laid, its cornerstones rests, upon the so called great truth that “The Negro is not equal to the White man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral conditions. They insisted that slaves has no civil rights. In defending slavery, slave holding states insisted that slavery was established by God, and they therefore, recommend the abolitionists to direct their anger and hostility to God who established it and to Jesus who recognized it as an establishment in the kingdom of God. These are some of the defensive mechanisms used by the slave masters to biblically falsify
They viewed abolitionist’s states as hypocrites, betrayals of the long standing surviving and economically workable law of the land which is slavery. People like John C. Calhoun one of the important figures of pro slavery politicians towards the fugitive slave law of 1850, stood before the US senate insisting “That South Carolina will lead the way in defending its rights to hold slaves. He went on as far as arguing that “the federal government has no right to touch the institution he argues and defend, warning that the fact that abolitionists controlled the press, education and pulpit may bring about a civil war if not contained.” He threatened. slave masters argues that we take care of our slaves, we feed them and as long as they continue to provide food for their slaves, they don’t see any other fundamental rights slaves needs since they are considered less than humans in anyways. So it’s like having a Dog who is non-human, but all you can do, provide him with food and he follows your orders probably slave’s animals receive far more better …show more content…
James Hendry Hammond, a plantation owner, an Attorney and politician from South Carolina argues that “Cotton is a King” asserting that “a war on Cotton would be suicidal for the northern economy and thus calling the abolitionists bluff. He taunts that their economic hypocrisy, opposition to slavery but making money hand over fist off slavery and cotton.” The abolitionists argues that “The enslavement of the Africans was in violation of the law of nature; that it was wrong in principles, socially and morally but politically and economically beneficial to the slave holding states. The slave holding states argues back that “Our government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas, its foundations are laid, its cornerstones rests, upon the so called great truth that “The Negro is not equal to the White man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral conditions. They insisted that slaves has no civil rights. In defending slavery, slave holding states insisted that slavery was established by God, and they therefore, recommend the abolitionists to direct their anger and hostility to God who established it and to Jesus who recognized it as an establishment in the kingdom of God. These are some of the defensive mechanisms used by the slave masters to biblically falsify