Civil War Era: Slavery

Among the main reasons why the American civil confrontation came to pass was because of the issue of the abolition of slavery in the United States. This was a situation which many of the southern states could not accept, mainly due to the fact that their economies depended heavily on slave labor. They believed that if slavery was abolished in their states, then there was a likelihood of economic collapse. To counter this challenge to their economy, mainly from the northern states of the union, whose economies did not depend on slaves, the southern states declared themselves to be independent of the union and instead chose to create their own. These came to be known as the Confederate states, all of whose members were slave owning states. This situation led to the coming to prominence of two men, whose views on slavery were entirely opposite of one another. The first is Abraham Lincoln was among the biggest proponents of the eradication of slavery in all the states within the union. The other is Jefferson Davis, who was a principal proponent of the institution of slavery and believed that it was a necessary part of the economy at the time. It is these two men who shall be discussed in this paper in relation to their positions on the institution of slavery.

The institution of slavery lasted for over three hundred and fifty years in what is today the United States until it was finally abolished in the eighteen sixties. It was one of the most brutal and dehumanizing institutions in the annals of the human race with the greatest victims being the African slaves. African slaves were imported like commodities from Africa to work in the large white owned plantations due to the fact that they could withstand those European diseases which normally killed the Indian slaves. Moreover, the ability of the Africans to work in the harsh conditions of a hot sun was seen to be an added advantage for their conversion to slaves. Europeans used various means to justify their enslavement of Africans, and one of these was that the bible stated that they were the children of Ham and that they had been cursed to be slaves to the other races that were descended from Noah. Another justification was the belief that Africans were subhuman, that they were inferior to the white race and that because of this, it was justifiable to treat them in any way one wanted because they had no human feelings at all. These highly mistaken concepts ensured that the slavery continued, and many Africans were brought to America and forced to undertake tasks under extremely harsh and brutal conditions for the sake of making a profit for their masters. It is for the purpose of ending this institution that the American Civil War took place, and despite the many lives that were lost, it was finally achieved with the defeat of the Confederate states in 1965 (Johnson 1242).

Abraham Lincoln was a firm believer that the establishment of slavery was evil and that it had no place in the United States. From the commencement of his political vocation, he often stated that he was against slavery. At a time when there was often heated debate concerning whether slavery should be allowed in the new states that joined the union, Lincoln was one of those who believed that such a thing was not to be allowed. He quoted, on several occasions, the principles of democracy as had been laid out by the Declaration of Independence (Guelzo 313). He stated that this declaration, in itself, made slavery unlawful because it considered all human beings to be equal, none being the master of the other. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, was a firm believer in the institution of slavery and often stated that it was a fundamental part of the economic well being of the southern states (Coles 898). Since slavery was what kept the economy of the south running, and this not only benefitted the states of the south alone, but the whole union, Davis believed that it was not to be abolished. Moreover, he did not believe in the equality of all men because he stated on various occasions that the black slaves were not intelligent enough to be treated equally. In direct opposition to Lincoln’s view, Davis stated that even the founding fathers were slave owners who had seen it fit to maintain the institution. If indeed these men had been against it, then they most likely would have abolished it when they formulated the constitution of the union. Since this was not the case, then they must have viewed slavery as a vital part of the American economy. Lincoln countered this line of argument by stating that while the founding fathers may have retained slavery, they had only done so because they believed that the institution would inevitably come to be abolished in time (Robey 184). In later years, Davis, still a firm believer in slavery also stated that it was inevitable that it would come to an end within two or three generations at the most. It seems that Davis came to realize that the inevitability of the end of this institution in the south despite its prominence.

Lincoln, in the years before ascending to the presidency, once declared that although he was against slavery, he did not know how best to end this institution (McDaniel 1062).  He thought that calling for the abolition of slavery would make those states, which practiced it, embrace it even more firmly. This, he believed, would make the situation for the slaves much worse than they already were. Some have criticized this statement, saying that Lincoln must have realized the economic significance of this institution, hence his reluctance to suggest ways to end it effectively. Despite this, once he gained the presidency, Lincoln took an active role in ending slavery by signing the Emancipation Proclamation. This proclamation effectively outlawed this institution within the United States, and it shows just how much thought Lincoln must have put in coming to make this decision (Dirck 382). It shows that Lincoln believed that the Federal government had the moral authority to make those states which practiced slavery to end it.

While many in the non slaveholding north supported this declaration, many in the south viewed it as the federal government’s attempt to interfere with their internal affairs (Oppenheim 65). The biggest advocate of this viewpoint was none other than Jefferson Davis, who was a staunch believer in the right of all the states within the union to make their own decision without interference. He believed that all the states in the union had joined it voluntarily, and this gave them the independence to decide what was and what was not best for them. If the federal government were to keep interfering in the domestic dealings of the states, then these states would inevitably lose their sovereignty, defeating the purpose of the formation of the union. He is noted to have stated that since all states had joined the union of their own free will, they also had the right to leave it if they felt that their interests were not being represented in a manner to their liking. Furthermore, Davis believed that the decision to end slavery lay with the individual states themselves, and not with the federal government (Roark 735). It is extremely likely that it was because of this stance that when the southern states chose to leave the union, they chose him to be their leader. His vision was to maintain slavery in the Confederate states and to expand this institution south into Mexico as this new slave owning federation grew.

It can be concluded that both Lincoln and Davis recognized that the ending of the institution of slavery, in the United States, was inevitable. Their point of view on how it would end is what brought them into conflict. Lincoln wanted to see the immediate ending and emancipation of all the slaves in the union while Davis, on the other hand, was of the view that although the end of slavery was inevitable, it was to be allowed to die a natural death. Each of the states which had instituted it was to make the decision on whether to abolish it or not. In the matter if abolition, however, one would go with the ideas of Lincoln, who stated that maintaining slavery in the United States would be a mockery of the democratic ideals on which the federation was founded. Moreover, it was not right to keep the black people slaves just because of their skin color or the belief that they were less intelligent than the whites. Such beliefs were by the time of the American Civil War, become outdated, and one would speculate that it was inevitable that this conflict took place. It was a war, not only to force the emancipation of the slaves in the south, but also one to destroy those beliefs which kept the democratic progress of the United States bogged down.

Causes of the American Civil War

Among the main reasons that have been states concerning why the American civil confrontation came to pass was because of the issue of the abolition of slavery in the United States. This was a situation which many of the southern states could not accept, mainly due to the fact that their economies depended heavily on slave labor. They believed that if slavery was abolished in their states, then there was a likelihood of economic collapse. To counter this challenge to their economy, mainly from the northern states of the union, whose economies did not depend on slaves, the southern states declared themselves to be independent of the union and instead chose to create their own. These came to be known as the Confederate states, all of whose members were slave owning states. Barbara Fields, however, disagrees with this assumption stating that the United States made war on the Confederates, not because of the abolition of slavery, but because it wanted to preserve the Union (Rios). The Emancipation of all the slaves in the Union was simply an excuse made to start the war that would force the southern states back into the Union. According to Fields, the northern states only declared war on the Confederate states because they not only wanted to preserve the Union, but also to ensure that they did not have a powerful rival. In essence, the northern states wanted to retain their advantage as the leading states in the Union by enforcing their dominance. This situation led to the coming to prominence of two men, whose views on slavery were entirely opposite of one another. The first is Abraham Lincoln was among the biggest proponents of the eradication of slavery in all the states within the Union as well as the preservation of the latter (Pinsker 59). The other is Jefferson Davis, who was a principal proponent of the institution of slavery and believed that it was a necessary part of the southern economy.

While many in the non slaveholding north supported the declaration, many in the south viewed it as the federal government’s attempt to interfere with their internal affairs. According to Shelby Foote, among the most prominent advocates of this viewpoint was none other than Jefferson Davis, who was a staunch believer in the right of all the states within the union to make their own decision without interference. He believed that all the states in the union had joined it voluntarily, and this gave them the independence to decide what was and what was not best for them. If the federal government were to keep interfering in the domestic dealings of the states, then these states would inevitably lose their sovereignty, defeating the purpose of the formation of the union (Dawson 592). He is noted to have stated that since all states had joined the union of their own free will, they also had the right to leave it if they felt that their interests were not being represented in a manner to their liking. Furthermore, Davis believed that the decision to end slavery lay with the individual states themselves, and not with the federal government. It is extremely likely that it was because of this stance that when the southern states chose to leave the union, they chose him to be their leader. His vision was to maintain slavery in the Confederate states and to expand this institution south into Mexico as this new slave owning federation grew. According to Foote, therefore, the American Civil war did not take place because of the need for the southern states to retain slavery, but for them to be able to determine their own destiny without any interference from the northern states, which dominated the United States at the time (Bolin 38). Many southerners at the time felt that the northern states wanted to enforce their will upon them so that they would remain a backwater and this is the reason why they chose to break from the Union.

In the matter if abolition, however, many have come to believe the reasons for Lincoln going to war, who stated that maintaining slavery in the United States would be a mockery of the democratic ideals on which the federation was founded. Moreover, it was not right to keep the black people slaves just because of their skin color or the belief that they were less intelligent than the whites. Such beliefs were by the time of the American Civil War, become outdated, and one would speculate that it was inevitable that this conflict took place. It was a war, not only to force the emancipation of the slaves in the south, but also one to destroy those beliefs which kept the democratic progress of the United States bogged down. Foote and Fields have come to challenge the above beliefs by introducing their own theories concerning why the war took place. Their most common belief is the fact that while the civil war took place in the name of abolition, this was in fact not the case, since it was a war more for political dominance than for the freeing of slaves.

Why African slaves in America were so docile when compared to their Caribbean counterparts

The institution of slavery lasted for over three hundred and fifty years in what is today the United States until it was finally abolished in the eighteen sixties. It was one of the most brutal and dehumanizing institutions in the history of the human race with the greatest victims being the African slaves. African slaves were imported like commodities from Africa to work in the large white owned plantations due to the fact that they could withstand those European diseases which normally killed the Indian slaves. Moreover, the ability of the Africans to work in the harsh conditions of a hot sun was seen to be an added advantage for their conversion to slaves. Europeans used various means to justify their enslavement of Africans and one of these was that the bible stated that they were the children of Ham and that they had been cursed to be slaves to the other races that were descended from Noah. Another justification was the belief that Africans were subhuman, that they were inferior to the white race and that because of this, it was justifiable to treat them in any way one wanted because they had no human feelings at all. These very mistaken concepts ensured that the slave trade continued and many Africans were brought to America and forced to undertake tasks under very harsh and brutal conditions for the sake of making a profit for their masters. In this paper, we shall look at several factors which made the African slaves in America so docile as compared to the slaves who were in other parts of the Americas and the Caribbean where it was very common to hear of slave revolts.

It is very difficult to determine why the American slaves were so docile as compared to their counterparts in the Caribbean because the former had more opportunities for rebellion due to the large chunks of the western part of America where they would have gone to hide. Not only would they have been able to hide, they would also have created maroon communities such as those which were formed by runaway slaves in the Caribbean. This, however, was not the case in America and instead, these slaves showed a type of docility which one finds very shocking. Perhaps their docility was just mere subterfuge and it was the only way they thought they would survive the yoke of slavery. In this paper, however, we shall discuss two possible factors which may have contributed to this docility namely: the slaves’ adoption of Christianity; and the fear of recapture and torture by their masters.

When slaves were brought from Africa, many of them still practiced their own traditional African religions. In time, however, they were forced to convert to Christianity by their masters and given European names because their masters considered Christianity to be the only true religion and that the practices of their slaves were pagan. Despite some initial resistance, where the slaves continued to practice their own religions secretly, the slaves took to Christianity and made it their own. They took the teachings of the bible very seriously especially those parts in the New Testament which encouraged the docility of slaves because it promised them that the kingdom of God would be theirs in the afterlife. This adoption of Christian beliefs may have greatly contributed to their inactivity towards the brutal actions of their masters and instead of revolting against them in a bid for freedom; they acted towards their masters with great humility. The Christian influence seems to have been so great on them that the accepted their situation and status in society as it was and became completely resigned to it. They took all the brutality that was meted out on them because of the faith they had in their new found religion and continues with their labors on the great plantations (Smithers, 2009). They seem to have dismissed any thought of revolt or escape as being a contravention of God’s will and instead chose to remain in the situation in which they had been sold or born into. It is therefore true to say that the Christian religion played a large part in contributing to the docility of the American slaves.

The second probable reason for the docility of the American slaves was the fear of the consequences of revolt or recapture after escape (Stanley Elkins). Those slaves who escaped and were hunted down by their masters were often given severe punishments and even killed in very inhumane to serve as examples to others who thought to follow in their footsteps. Although many slaves attempted to make a dash for freedom every year, very few were able to make it and these were usually tracked down by dogs and if caught, their punishment began on the spot. The dogs were allowed to savage them for a while although most owners were very careful that the economic value of their slaves would remain intact. After this came the flogging which took hours and the slave could go in and out of consciousness during such sessions; the weaker ones would die. If the slave survived this ordeal, he was often confined in chains until such a time as their master saw fit to release them, either to set them to work or to sell them. In the worst case scenario, the master could have the slave either hanged or burned so that they would be an example to their fellow slaves (Taylor, 1996). Slaves who witnessed the ordeals of their runaway fellows would probably have chosen to remain docile because to do otherwise would have been to expose themselves to unimaginable torture or death. It is the fear of this which kept them under the firm control of their masters and instances of slave rebellions in America were very few and these were only on a small scale. Instead, many who sought escape from their situation often did so through suicide (George Fredrickson and Christopher Lasch).

In conclusion, it can be said that it is indeed true that the American slaves seem to have been more docile than those in the Caribbean. This is despite the fact that they had more places to go if they escaped than the latter. Those in the Caribbean were however better organized than those in America and that is why their revolts or escapes often used to happen on a larger scale and some even became great successes such as the one in Haiti. The adoption of Christianity by the American slaves and their great fear of the torture which resulted from any form of rebellion ensured that they remained docile as a way of survival.

Clinton's Impeachment

Bill Clinton was the second president of the United States to be impeached by Congress over matters concerning perjury before a grand jury and abuse of power. These were very serious offenses which should have ended in his removal from office and it was immoral for the senate to acquit him. The offenses which he was accused of committing were proven beyond any doubt to have happened and not only was this done but overwhelming evidence was brought to the attention of the public. There was no justification for Clinton’s acquittal by the senate just because a few Republican representatives were found to be hypocritical because they were found to have been unfaithful to their spouses. 

Most of the latter stepped down from their positions because of their moral obligations to the American society but the President, whose actions had a greater significance than the others chose to retain his position. This was a sign of disrespect not only to the American people but to the whole world. It reduced the respect which the institution of the American presidency inspired among other world leaders and instead, brought a sense of disillusionment towards its authority. The best course of action that should have been taken against Clinton would have been his removal from office so that this action would have served as an example and warning to presidents who came after him. It would have set a precedence on how to deal with such matters within the presidency and reestablished the respect which the presidency deserved. However, this was not the case when the senate acquitted Clinton despite the fact that he had tarnished the image of his office.

Public Prejudice Towards Asylum Seekers in Australia

What underlies public prejudice towards asylum seekers?

Many Australians feel the government should maintain a tough policy on asylum seekers who arrive by boat.
Hadi Zader/Flickr, CC BY

Anne Pedersen, Murdoch University and Lisa Hartley, Curtin University

According to a poll taken last December, 60% of those surveyed think the Australian government should “increase the severity of the treatment of asylum seekers”. What’s behind this negative sentiment (otherwise known as prejudice) towards asylum seekers in Australian society?“

One very important and consistent predictor of prejudice is the acceptance of inaccurate information, or myths, as true. A 2006 study, carried out by one of this article’s authors, identified three frequently cited myths that depicted asylum seekers as "queue jumpers”, “illegals” and not having a genuine reason to seek asylum. This study found that people who were high in prejudice were significantly more likely to accept these myths as being true.

These beliefs have been linked with government rhetoric about asylum seekers under the previous Howard government. Under the Abbott government, there has been no shortage of hostile rhetoric. The punitive asylum seeker policies of the Labor government under Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have also continued.

The ugly side of nationalism and perceptions of consensus

Some research links extreme levels of nationalism to prejudice towards asylum seekers. In one study into the phenomenon of flying Australian flags on one’s car for Australia Day, researchers from the University of Western Australia and Curtin University surveyed 501 people in public spaces in the week leading up to and on Australia Day in 2011.

The study found car-flag flyers rated more highly on measures of patriotism and nationalism and were significantly more likely to express prejudiced views against asylum seekers than non-flag flyers. Of those who flew flags, only 9.9% held positive views towards asylum seekers, compared to 24.7% of non-flag flyers.

Research suggests a correlation between nationalism and prejudice against asylum seekers.
Flickr/Brian Costelloe, CC BY

We have found that people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers are also notably more likely to over-estimate support in the community for these views compared with those more accepting of asylum seekers.

A 2008 study carried out by one of the authors found while both groups over-estimated their support in the community, the effect was much more pronounced among people holding prejudiced views.

This finding is of concern because other research finds people who see themselves as having a “majority voice” are more likely to be vocal and less flexible in their views than others who see themselves as having a “minority voice”.

People who seek to be tolerant and accepting of asylum seekers often find it difficult to speak out. This compounds the problem: prejudiced people’s influence can be disproportionate to their numbers.

The role of emotion

In addition to these cognitive factors that underlie prejudice, some studies indicate community views about asylum seekers are strongly linked with emotions. Research in 2010 found people who are positive towards asylum seekers are more likely to feel empathy for them, to feel moral outrage at their situation and to express disgust and embarrassment at Australia’s policy stance.

Hostile rhetoric from our politicians can build prejudice against asylum seekers.
AAP/Daniel Munoz

Our recent unpublished study found people who held prejudiced views against asylum seekers were more likely to feel threatened by them. This was the case in regard to perceived threats to both security and “Australian values”.

Prejudiced participants were also more likely to be angry at asylum seekers for their mode of entry. Once emotions are involved, the issue becomes even more difficult to resolve.

Participants were significantly more prejudiced against asylum seekers who arrive by boat compared with refugees who were accepted offshore and resettled through Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program. So, although racism – prejudice based on race – is clearly involved, it is not the whole story.

Countering the myths that fuel prejudice

The fact our participants were more negative towards boat arrivals relates to a myth touched on above: “queue jumping”. The term queue implies that an orderly resettlement process exists, but this is far from reality.

It may also be the case many Australians are quite sensitive to what they see as rule-breaking. Our 2012 study on prejudice against Muslim Australians found a strong predictor of resentment was a perceived lack of conformity with Australian culture. Asylum seekers are often seen as Muslim even though they come from a range of religions, including Christianity and Hinduism.

Our finding also relates to the “not genuine” myth. Yet, over the last decade, more than 90% of boat arrivals have been found to be refugees. These myths, among others, need to be refuted if we are to reduce prejudice.

Levels of prejudice in Australian society can be reduced. Studies of both university students and older Australians in the community show attitudes can become more positive. This is important, as individuals can turn into a critical mass that can change social norms and government policy.

Anne Pedersen, Associate Professor in Psychology, Murdoch University and Lisa Hartley, Lecturer, Centre for Human Rights Education, Curtin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A Pet Peeve

Pet peeves are a normal characteristic in all human beings and everybody has one which others find irritating (Johnston). My personal pet peeve is when I get interrupted when talking and when such a thing happens, I tend to lose my temper. This has tended to bring me into conflict not only with my coworkers, but also with my family and friends as well. I still believe that my actions are justified because it is very rude to interrupt someone when he is speaking and instead one should listen until the other person has finished articulating his ideas. I think that this is an essential part of human associations. Interrupting someone when he is speaking is a sign of lack of a respect, an insult, and most of all, a personal challenge.

Interrupting someone when he is speaking is a sign of lack of respect and I think that my reaction towards people who do this is justified (Joyce). Not only is this a lack of respect but it shows how these people regard me. It brings out a feeling of inadequacy within me which I find very hard to ignore and my first instinctive reaction is to lose my temper. Everybody has a right to get angry when disrespected in anyway and I do not see the difference between me and them. I do not see why people should be offended by my reaction towards what I consider to be a disrespectful gesture because all these other people have their own peeves which they consider to be disrespectful towards them. I consider being interrupted to be a sign of disrespect towards me and if those around me do not like how I react, then it would be best if they did not interrupt me when I am talking.

I consider being interrupted when speaking, especially when making a very important point to be very insulting. This is due to the fact that the person who has interrupted me does not see the importance of what I am talking about or disagrees with it and instead chooses to do this insulting thing. I would prefer to be told to my face that what I am talking about is not important or that it is boring instead of my speech being dismissed in such an insulting way. I would not get angry if one were to tell me this and I am sure that we would afterwards come to a very amicable solution to what I was saying.

Being interrupted when speaking is a personal challenge to the speaker and should be answered with the severity it deserves. Interrupting a person when he is speaking especially on a subject that the person who has interrupted knows nothing about is very personal because he is casting doubt on the knowledge of the speaker (Bromann, 24 - 28). The speaker’s angry reaction towards this is very much justified and he deserves the apology of the person who has interrupted him. If such a thing were done, then there would be no need for conflict between people.

In conclusion, it is a normal thing for everybody to have at least one pet peeve. These pet peeves may be rational or irrational and should be met with understanding. People should be careful to learn what the pet peeves of others around them are and should try their utmost to avoid them. This will ensure that there is always a calm and sociable place where everybody can live and work in peace.