The most prominent elements of the philosophical debates between pro-and anti-slavery forces before the civil war were systems of ethical and political social thought based on the idea of conscience. According to Öztürk (2021), each conscience and the public opinion developed from each individual’s moral consciousness and conscience will sound. In this ethical theory, human beings are endowed with free will and reason and have a sense of justice that allows them to know what is right or wrong (Öztürk, 2021). It is believed that slave owners abused their authority by denying the slaves their humanity and freedom.
Most anti-slavery thinkers argued that all human beings are equal in terms of rights and, therefore, slavery is immoral. At its root, slavery violated the fundamental ethical and religious norms on which these colonists had been raised since childhood. For example, slaves were denied their freedom and treated as property rather than human beings (Ă–ztĂĽrk, 2021). They were denied the right to have children and be married (although they could be sold away from their families). They also proved that human beings could grow intellectually, emotionally, physically, and spiritually through self-reliance and gain skills by being productive ( Ă–ztĂĽrk, 2021). Thus, they believed that slavery was an inefficient economic practice because it kept the whole society unproductive.
Consequently, Öztürk (2021) argued that the most prominent elements of the philosophical debates between pro-and anti-slavery forces before the civil war were whether slavery was sinful or not, whether it was right or wrong and whether it was evil. The pro-slavery forces argued that it was a right, while the anti-slavery forces argued it was wrong (Gutacker, 2020). The pro-slavery forces argued that slavery was the right thing to do, promoting abolitionists and the anti-slavery forces as terrible villains because they wanted to abolish slavery. The pro-slavery forces also insisted on respect and law, while the anti-slavery forces countered that only God was above respecting life, including human rights (Gutacker, 2020). Regarding slavery, slavery is not sinful as long as it practices how it is supposed to be practiced. Those against slavery and who favored abolition were terrorists because they wanted the government to protect life and did not want slaves’ rights revoked.
Gutacker (2020) asserted that the South was right in slavery, where they were fighting for their rights to give them freedom and not be persecuted by being invaded. However, the North was wrong because they wanted slavery eliminated but did not want to fight for slaves’ rights since it was a sin, making the South more apt to win over them. Slavery is not a right, but it is a wrong that promotes injustice. Consequently, many people claim that the anti-slavery forces are terrorists who do not know what they are doing because slavery existed for years, even before the government.
The civil war did not change differences in the philosophical debates between pro-and anti-slavery forces because most of the original philosophical differences remained intact. Whereby the divided beliefs did not change to accommodate the opposing side. According to Richardson (2020), the philosophical differences were not racial but ideological contests. It was race that was the crucial component of the debate. The evolution of political parties shows this in the years following the war. The party that defended slavery and rights for black people switched to a purely anti-slavery party (Richardson, 2020). Thus, the philosophical debates did not need to change to accommodate opposing ideas because they were separate from those opinions.
In addition to the above, the issue between pro-and anti-slavery forces was mainly a question of economics and constitutional interpretation rather than morality. On the other hand, slavery became more entrenched after the war ended, which had more to do with imperialistic ambitions in Africa and South America than one’s views on race. The federal government took over the land in this period and confiscated the property of the states that had been involved in the rebellion (Richardson, 2020). The state governments lost control of their property and land, which was then divided among citizens of whatever race was thought superior. The Civil War was referred to as “the war for slavery” (Richardson, 2020). As a result, the philosophical debates between pro-and anti-slavery forces began after the war where it left off before the war because most philosophers believed that natural rights did not justify slavery.
In addition, the issue between pro-and anti-slavery forces was mainly a question of economics and constitutional interpretation rather than morality. It made the philosophical arguments on slavery incapable of changing even after the civil war. Both the war and its aftermath served to harden attitudes toward slavery, but not all of these attitudes were racial (Richardson, 2020). Instead, much more was at stake in terms of political power than with slavery. The economic aspects were what caused the split between pro-and anti-slavery forces. The arguments were based on human nature and attempted to define it. In other words, the differences between pro-and anti-slavery forces were ideologically driven, not racial, and not connected to the issue of morality (Richardson, 2020). Nonetheless, the issue of slavery seemed to be directly related to one’s views on race for some people because slavery was based mainly upon a racial hierarchy within society. Thus, in many cases opposing views on race are closely linked with opposing views on slavery.
References
Gutacker, P. (2020). Seventeen centuries of sin: The Christian past in Antebellum slavery debates. Church History, 89(2).
Öztürk, B. E. (2021). Treachery of silence: Usage of pro-and anti-slavery rhetoric as political propaganda in 18th-and 19th-century revolutions[Unpublished master’s thesis]. İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University.
Richardson, H. C. (2020). How the South won the civil war: oligarchy, democracy, and the continuing fight for the soul of America. Oxford University Press, USA.