Opinion Abortion Thu Nov 5, - Even if abolitionists did not care about escaped slaves, it would not change the fact that slavery is barbaric and should be illegal. And by the way, pro-lifers do care about born children. Pro-Lifers pretend to be humanitarians but are really motivated by partisan politics.
Full Document …I proceed to the discussion. And first a word about the question. Much will be gained at the outset if we fully and clearly understand the real question under discussion. Indeed, nothing is or can be understood.
This are often confounded and treated as the same, for no better reason than that they resemble each other, even while they are in their nature and character totally distinct and even directly opposed to each other. This jumbling up things is a sort of dust-throwing which is often indulged in by small men who argue for victory rather than for truth.
Thus, for instance, the American Government and the American Constitution are spoken of in a manner which would naturally lead the hearer to believe that one is identical with the other; when the truth is, they are distinct in character as is a ship and a compass.
The one may point right and the other steer wrong. A chart is one thing, the course of the vessel is another.
The Constitution may be right, the Government is wrong. If the Government has been governed by mean, sordid, and wicked passions, it does not follow that the Constitution is mean, sordid, and wicked.
What, then, is the question? I will state it. But first let me state what is not the question. It is not whether slavery existed in the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; it is not whether slaveholders took part in the framing of the Constitution; it is not whether those slaveholders, in their hearts, intended to secure certain advantages in that instrument for slavery; it is not whether the American Government has been wielded during seventy-two years in favour of the propagation and permanence of slavery; it is not whether a pro-slavery interpretation has been put upon the Constitution by the American Courts — all these points may be true or they may be false, they may be accepted or they may be rejected, without in any wise affecting the real question in debate.
The real and exact question between myself and the class of persons represented by the speech at the City Hall may be fairly stated thus: Or, in other words, is the refusal to exercise the elective franchise, and to hold office in America, the surest, wisest, and best way to abolish slavery in America?
To these questions the Garrisonians say Yes. They hold the Constitution to be a slaveholding instrument, and will not cast a vote or hold office, and denounce all who vote or hold office, no matter how faithfully such persons labour to promote the abolition of slavery.
I, on the other hand, deny that the Constitution guarantees the right to hold property in man, and believe that the way to abolish slavery in America is to vote such men into power as well use their powers for the abolition of slavery.
This is the issue plainly stated, and you shall judge between us. Before we examine into the disposition, tendency, and character of the Constitution, I think we had better ascertain what the Constitution itself is.
Before looking for what it means, let us see what it is. Here, too, there is much dust to be cleared away.
What, then, is the Constitution? I will tell you. It is not even like the British Constitution, which is made up of enactments of Parliament, decisions of Courts, and the established usages of the Government.
The American Constitution is a written instrument full and complete in itself. No Court in America, no Congress, no President, can add a single word thereto, or take a single word threreto. It is a great national enactment done by the people, and can only be altered, amended, or added to by the people.
I am careful to make this statement here; in America it would not be necessary.
It would not be necessary here if my assailant had shown the same desire to be set before you the simple truth, which he manifested to make out a good case for himself and friends. Again, it should be borne in mind that the mere text, and only the text, and not any commentaries or creeds written by those who wished to give the text a meaning apart from its plain reading, was adopted as the Constitution of the United States.
It should also be borne in mind that the intentions of those who framed the Constitution, be they good or bad, for slavery or against slavery, are so respected so far, and so far only, as we find those intentions plainly stated in the Constitution.
It would be the wildest of absurdities, and lead to endless confusion and mischiefs, if, instead of looking to the written paper itself, for its meaning, it were attempted to make us search it out, in the secret motives, and dishonest intentions, of some of the men who took part in writing it.
It was what they said that was adopted by the people, not what they were ashamed or afraid to say, and really omitted to say. Bear in mind, also, and the fact is an important one, that the framers of the Constitution sat with doors closed, and that this was done purposely, that nothing but the result of their labours should be seen, and that that result should be judged of by the people free from any of the bias shown in the debates.
It should also be borne in mind, and the fact is still more important, that the debates in the convention that framed the Constitution, and by means of which a pro-slavery interpretation is now attempted to be forced upon that instrument, were not published till more than a quarter of a century after the presentation and the adoption of the Constitution.
These debates were purposely kept out of view, in order that the people should adopt, not the secret motives or unexpressed intentions of any body, but the simple text of the paper itself.Pro states that slavery is not wrong if it is voluntarily entered.
Con then argues that Pro's view of slavery is not "true slavery," and therefore he ought to win. Pro clarifies his definition with an article, demonstrating that the type of slavery he speaks of is indeed slavery, because the person is becoming the property of another.
Another argument used in support of slavery was that slaves were property, and individuals had the constitutional right to their property. We will write a custom essay sample on Pro-Slavery Arguments specifically for you. Pro Slavery Argument (Not my opinion) Essay Slavery Debate Pro Slavery: Social Although the primary argument for the preservation of slavery in the eighteen hundreds was economic, the social aspect of the debate was also strongly emphasized by slavery advocates.
Slavery in the United States was the legal institution of human chattel enslavement, primarily of Africans and African Americans, that existed in the United States of America in the 18th and 19th centuries. Slavery had been practiced in British America from early colonial days, and was legal in all Thirteen Colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence in Packing slaves onto a deck of a slave ship called The Brookes..
The iconic Brookes print, designed in Plymouth, UK, in depicted the conditions on board the slave ship The image portrayed slaves arranged in accordance with the Regulated Slave Trade Act of The Southern Argument for Slavery. Which of the following was not a Southern argument in favor of slavery?
Religion Economy Legality Contemporary White Opinions of Slavery How did a Southerner feel about daily life with slaves? How did would one feel .