The Abolitionist Argument for the Immediate End of Slavery
Slavery is a cruel system and an outdated act that should have come to an end in the 1850s. Firstly, the townspeople’s human rights and dignity will likely be undermined if slavery remains legal. Research indicates that when workers are denied their human rights, they are more likely to experience emotional and physical suffering (Bloom 287). This is due to long working hours and exposure to unhealthy working conditions, such as low or no payment. Slavery should never be allowed, and anyone rooting for it is committing an act of injustice and cruelty and should be held accountable for their actions.
Slavery perpetuates a high level of inequality, which causes economic burden and more poverty in a country. Lovett argues that slavery occurs among those deliberately excluded from the rule of law, justice, and economic development (1). Under the exclusion of economic development, usually, enslaved people are denied the right to education. Education plays a significant role in increasing the labor force by enhancing the amount of human capital available in the labor market.
Besides, through education, new technologies enhance economic innovation, facilitating growth in the country. Poverty will also increase if Ohio allows slavery, since families will be separated. Children will be born into slavery, which will continue even in future generations. People will be denied the right to own property, hindering the country’s economic growth. Suppose Ohio wants to achieve its economic development goals. In that case, slavery should be abolished so that citizens can own property and access education as tools for economic prosperity.
The Southern Slaveholder’s Defense of the “Peculiar Institution”
By allowing slavery, plantations are likely to become highly profitable since the source of labor is cheap and readily available. Enslaved people worked hard to get little pay; without their presence, many of the plantations in the South would have collapsed. It is essential to consider that most enslaved people are treated fairly and have decent lives, and therefore, slavery should not be treated as evil. In fact, by allowing slavery in the Southern and other areas, more jobs would be created, improving people’s lives.
Slavery is likely to improve the United States’ economy if it were legalized. This was proven during colonialism, before the introduction of the cotton gin into the production sector. The enslaved people would provide cheap labor in the cotton plantations, and revenue increased (Burnard and Riello 225). In a similar case, allowing slavery in Carroll, Ohio, could help revive the economy, leading to significant growth over time. Slavery is linked with strict laws and regulations to put enslaved people in place, contributing significantly to maintaining the country’s social order.
Crime rates have been increasing in recent years in the United States, and criminals are detained in prison; as a result, they do not contribute to the economy’s growth. Instead of captivity, practicing slavery would be a source of affordable labor since the prisoners would be working in the plantations. This approach proved effective during the Civil War in the Southern states, where leased prisoners were utilized to work on large plantations, mines, and private railroads (Hammad 65). In the case of Carroll, Ohio, prisoners should not be exposed to harsh working conditions, such as no pay and other inhuman treatments.
Works Cited
Bloom, Sandra L. “Afterword: Human Rights and the Science of Suffering.” Trauma and Human Rights, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, pp. 287-319.
Burnard, Trevor, and Giorgio Riello. “Slavery and the New History of Capitalism.” Journal of Global History, vol. 15, no. 2, 2020, pp. 225-244.
Hammad, Neveen. “Shackled to economic appeal: How prison labor facilitates modern slavery while perpetuating poverty in Black communities.” Va. J. Soc. Pol’y & L. 26 (2019): 65.
Lovett, Frank. “A republican argument for the rule of law.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 26, no. 2, 2020, p. 1.