Although the North held a disdainful position of bondage. it was neither sympathetic nor supportive of the inkinesss. The prevailing position in the North was: 1 ) the inkinesss were an inferior race. 2 ) it is the responsibility of the Whites to educate them. 3 ) political authorization belonged entirely to the Whites. and 4 ) bondage was an unnatural societal agreement. This position of bondage had certain effects. Many people in the North held prejudiced positions against inkinesss. Blacks should. by nature. be segregated from the Whites. Blacks should be regarded as 2nd category citizens.
In the South. nevertheless. slaves were non seen as disdainful creative activity of nature. Rather. slaves were regarded with attention and nuance. Many people in the South neither held prejudiced positions against slaves nor rejected the possibility of assimilation. As Morison argued. “A white lady in the South would non waver to sit beside a fat black. supposing of class that all people in the train knows that the latter belonged to the former” ( 591 ) . Eric McKittrick provided a comprehensive defence of bondage.
He argued that the demand to get rid of bondage before 1850 was prematurely in three respects ( harmonizing to Southern politicians ) ( McKittrick. 192 ) . First. much of the Southern economic system depended on slave labour for its endurance. Second. to give slaves societal equality was considered political self-destruction. The slaves lacked the preparation and instruction to profit from that societal equality. And in conclusion. the slaves would happen themselves in a really hard state of affairs with the Whites ; that is. they would non be accepted as equal citizens in the American state.
McKittrick argued that it was better to let bondage to disintegrate. as apparent in many states ( McKittrick. 219 ) . Slavery was a impermanent province of nature. which was destined to disintegrate in the annals of history. Slavery could non work if it lost its societal public-service corporation. McKittricka noted that if bondage was abolished so it is preferred to let the Whites to populate in the North than in the South.
This was due possibly to the differing attitude of Northern and Southern society towards slaves in general. As been argued earlier. although the North rejected bondage. it held no favourable sentiment of the inkinesss. In the South. favoritism was a affair of penchant. Most people accepted the slaves as at least partial members of Southern society ( in fact. necessary members ) .
Most Southern politicians accepted these positions about bondage. They argued that bondage was by no agencies conflicting with the ideals of autonomy. equality. and moral virtuousness. Slavery was a impermanent societal agreement that will shortly shrivel off. Time was needed to develop slaves for self-government. non as a separate state. but as portion of the American society.
The ideals of autonomy. equality. and moral virtuousness were themselves non absolute constructs. Each ideal carried the kernel of duty which every American must accept. To injudiciously reject bondage was a recoil of personal duty to authorise the slaves. Slavery was a positive force in society because it taught the maestro to be responsible. and the slave to be patient. Here one can clearly see the foundation of a Christian or instead Protestant defence of bondage.
McKittrick. Eric.Bondage Defended: The Positions of the Old South. New York: Prentice Hall. 1963.
Morison. Samuel Eliot.The Oxford History of the American State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1954.