The Rebuke of John Mann

 

        Yes, Lydia was shot. So what? If someone does something wrong, do you not punish them? Do you let them be free to make the same offense again. I did not think so. Whether if he was allowed to have Lydia for one year or for one hundred years, he was to keep her in check. Without such measures, the slaves would run amuck doing as they please, and we all know that is not the right way to get the job done. The defendant is justifiably right in his abuse of said slave, Lydia, for she was out of line. 

        Here's why my defendant even wanted Lydia in the first place. First off, slaves are seen as a class status in the sense of the more you had, the richer you looked. You had your Elites at the top, who were the ones who had lots of slaves; they eventually had the most profit, and were the most popular. Next you have your self-made farmers who had a few slaves. They were usually begging to get more to be able to reach that elite status. Then at the bottom of the barrel were the small farmers who had no slaves at all. These were the saddest farmers, for they had no money nor did they have any money to buy slaves to make a profit off of. Mr. John Mann, as well as a few others here, would love to call themselves Elitists, and to roll with the big dogs. So, why was his way of going about it looked down upon? Was he not trying to do the same as everyone else?

    Also, buying a slave for a year is a lot less cheaper than having to pay a white worker to do the same job. Mr. Mann is just thinking smarter and not harder. He needed Lydia to do as she was told, and she disobeyed; therefore, she shall be punished.

    Mr. Mann should be reversed of such a preposterous accusation, for he was doing what he had to do, just like every other slave owner.

Slavery?

 I do not need to sit here and explain to you why slavery is wrong, nor can I explain to you why slavery is right. I will just sit here and repeat to you what some of my classmates points were for illustrating to the class, why slavery is moral or why it is immoral.

    First up on the pro-slavery aspect we have Samuel Morse. He states that slavery is supported by the bible, and that it would be a sin to oppose such a thing. Now Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, took it in a more economical fashion. He says that slavery is fueling the nation, and that taking it away could lead to a depression. Basically, he uses it to keep him rich and in the elite class. Thomas Jefferson was on the fence about slavery, but on his pro-slavery side, he illustrated that whites are more superior, but he also wanted to reform slavery and treat the slaves better. Finally in a political turn, Henry Clay supported slavery in order to keep his political position, but morally he was against it. In the end, it seems as though most pro-slavery people supported it for selfish reasons, instead of thinking from the other side.

    On the opposing side, there were several individuals who were on the anti-slavery side. For example, Fredrick Douglass, who was a slave himself, retells of how slaves were treated awfully. He tells that masters had mental and physical control over their slaves, and that they did not educate them. John Brown witnessed a 12 year old black boy being beaten, and was so bothered by it that he killed several slavery supporters in retaliation. Once Thomas Jefferson switched, he realized that black people should be included in "all men are created equal." Another important figure in the battle of pro versus anti slavery was Benjamin Franklin. He had once owned slaves before, like Jefferson, but realized that it violates humans rights and exploits those individuals. As you can see there are several people, even if they did not at first, that support the belief that black people should be free and should be able to be their own person.

In conclusion, I am not here to decide for you which side of history you should be on; I am here to give you the facts, and to let you make your own decisions. Just try to imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. 

The Journey Of A Slave

 My name is Harriet Tubman, born in Maryland to my momma, Harriet, and my daddy, Ben. Me and my 8 brothers and sisters were all born into slavery, for my parents were slaves. 3 of my sisters were sold to other plantations, so we all got split up. I was beaten so badly in those plantations that I got scars that will last for the rest of my life. I can recall a specific time where I was hit 5 times before breakfast was ever served. Another time, I saw another slave who was on the run. My owner told me to chase after him, but when I refused, he threw a two-pound weight at my head. I still have severe headaches and suffer from narcolepsy because of it. I ended up having to have brain surgery later in life, because I couldn’t handle the pain.  

          Can you imagine the fear I lived every day when I woke up? I did not know if I would make it to the next day, or if I would be separated from my family. I lived in constant fright that my family would be hurt. I married John Tubman in 1844, but he didn’t want to join me in the Underground Railroad, and left me for another woman. I later married Nelson Davis and adopted my baby girl, Gertie.

         In 1849, I planned to escape to Philadelphia though this thing you may have heard about called the Underground Railroad.  Two of my brothers were supposed to come with me, but a $300 reward was put out for our return.I didn’t want to go back, and they were scared, so I timidly let them go back. I had to travel around 90 miles all by myself and “When I found I had crossed that line, I looked at my hands to see if I was the same person. There was such a glory over everything; the sun came like gold through the trees, and over the fields, and I felt like I was in Heaven.” My goal was to save my family and any others left to be enslaved for the rest of their lives. I made 19 trips from the South to the North and helped over 300 people escape to freedom. Of course, like everything else in my life, it was hard. The Fugitive Slave Law was passed, which told everyone to return runaway slaves if they saw them, and thus I had to reroute the journey to Canada. 

       I spent a good portion of my life fighting for those who couldn’t fight for themselves. They lived in fear of not knowing what their future would be like. They didn’t want to have kids out of fear of their lives turning out the same. I fought for those who were abused, mentally and physically, and felt like their life was forever going to be a living hell. I pray that none of you ever have to experience what I have, because it truly does change a person, for the worst. 

Christianity: Pro or Anti Slavery?

           

Slavery has been a big topic of discussion in Christianity for many years now. On one hand, the bible asserts statements that seem to condone slavery, but on the other hand, there were plenty of abolitionist Christians fighting for slave rights. Christianity, in historical and recent times, has been incognizant about whether slavery is supported in their theology or not. 

            The concept of condoning slavery has been very prevalent in Christian theology. For example, Christians heavily support the bible and all its interpretations, but Ephesians 6:5 states “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ”. Also, when asked about pro-slavery thoughts in Christian theology, Frederick Douglass states “I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I therefore hate the corrupt, slave-holding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land”. He recalls the horrors that he has experienced throughout the religion, and even goes so far as to call it “bad, corrupt, and wicked”. 

Those who had slaves would say that they were saving the Africans from their “savage-like ways”, and were infusing them with Christian theology to control them. Christian slaveholders said that they treated their slaves kindly, and they thought that they were saving the slaves from a religion that “worshiped the devil, practiced witchcraft, and sorcery”. Many believed that giving slaves the freedom to practice would cause them to assume that they should be set free, especially after Nat Turner’s rebellion. Evidently, there are many affirmations that Christianity explicitly, and even implicitly, condones slavery.

Religious leaders and religion in the north played a significant role in condemning slavery. Although Southern ministers and churches were still pro-slavery, Northern ministers actually played a large role in the anti-slavery or abolitionist movement. In order to gain followers for the abolitionist movement in a time where the south and parts of the north depended heavily on slavery, the abolitionists described slavery as an “evil, un-Christian system” and “a stain on the values of the Declaration of Independence”. 

Many leading Abolitionists were guided by their religious beliefs. During a time known as the Second Great Awakening religious leaders told their congregations that they could achieve salvation by “building lives of morality” and “speaking out against sin”. Since slavery was considered one of the most sinful practices, the abolitionists attacked the movement with even more passion and people than ever before. Without the help of Northern ministers and churches, the abolitionist movement could have ended before it even began. People trusted their religious leaders and therefore the movement grew immensely when religion became a part of the argument against slavery.

Christianity has both condemned and condoned slavery at one point. You could argue either side in this case but ultimately it depends on how you interpret the bible. Religious leaders preached their interpretations of the bible whether it was pro or anti slavery.