Thesis Statements for DBQ #5 (Slavery) - Mr. E's Forum: 2006-2007

Date: Nov 16, 2006

Thesis Statements for DBQ #5 (Slavery)

Date: Nov 16, 2006

Students can view the text's DBQ #5 (on slavery) here.

Date: Nov 16, 2006

Many Northerners felt that slavery should be abolished because it was morally wrong and economically unnecessary because of their strong manufacturing potential. Numerous Southerners needed slavery because slaves were cheap, skillful, and their economy depended on them.

Date: Nov 16, 2006

MeLaNiE<33 wrote:

Many Northerners felt that slavery should be abolished because it was morally wrong and economically unnecessary because of their strong manufacturing potential. Numerous Southerners needed slavery because slaves were cheap, skillful, and their economy depended on them.

Melanie, when you say "economically unnecessary because of their strong manufacturing potential", you might want to grammatically rephrase it. It sounds as though it was morally wrong because of their manufacturing potential as well, and I know you only mean it for its economic unnecessity.

Date: Nov 18, 2006

Many northern Americans were against slavery because they were more economically advanced then the south, and they felt that slavery was a threat to their theoretical values and interests. Many southerners defended slavery because they felt it was absolutely acknowledged by God, and they thought that ending slavery would end the cultivation of southern crops.

Date: Nov 18, 2006

Krystal F. wrote:

Many northern Americans were against slavery because they were more economically advanced then the south, and they felt that slavery was a threat to their theoretical values and interests. Many southerners defended slavery because they felt it was absolutely acknowledged by God, and they thought that ending slavery would end the cultivation of southern crops.

Krystal, the southern arguments for slavery seem sound, because they are religious and economic, and both were strong forces that reinforced a slave system. You might want to reword 'absolutely ackowledged by God' because that could be interpreted a few different ways. What you might say is something like 'they felt slavery was Biblically justified' or something similar. In your essay, you could quote passages from the Bible that supported your position. As far as the arguments for the northerners, its a little more subjective. To say that the north was economically 'more advanced', implies that there is something better about industrialization over agriculture. In reality, its not that industrialization is 'better', but it definitely had a more profound effect on immigration, urbanization, technological advancement, standard of living (although debatable) and other factors that transformed the world. Maybe you could state that it was a better symbol of economic progress or something like that? You also didn't state what the northerners 'theoretical values and interests' are. I'm not sure what you mean by that, but i could probably guess. You might want to clarify that with more specificity. I think you have a good framework here, though. Awesome start. I hope my comments helped.

Date: Nov 19, 2006

The issues on whether slavery was right or wrong have been debated over the centuries, beginning with the North and South in the 1800s. Among the many arguments for and against slavery, examples are the Southerners argument that slavery was needed for their economy to keep up with that of the North, while Northerners regarded slavery as an evil, and argued that it violated the principle of 'freedom' the country was built on.

Date: Nov 19, 2006

Tanya wrote:

The issues on whether slavery was right or wrong have been debated over the centuries, beginning with the North and South in the 1800s. Among the many arguments for and against slavery, examples are the Southerners argument that slavery was needed for their economy to keep up with that of the North, while Northerners regarded slavery as an evil, and argued that it violated the principle of 'freedom' the country was built on.

Tanya, the first sentence is a set-up. It's not actually part of the thesis, but it is a useful part of the introduction. Your second sentence is your actual thesis. You might want to rephrase it so you draw a distinction between which arguments are for and which are against. You also want to avoid oversimplifying the economic health of the nation. The South wasn't trying to 'keep up' with the North. That's a view we get in hindsight. Southern cotton, for instance, was an integral part of the northern textile industry. And you want to also point out that the north didn't simply argue against slavery for its moral violations. Many northerners, who were quick to point out the evils of slavery were also racist in that they viewed African Americans as inferior and didn't support racial integration or equality. It's not as black and white as it may appear (sorry for the pun).

Date: Nov 20, 2006

Southern states beleived that the first and most obvious effect of abolishing slavery would be the end of their staple crop, cotton. The southern states were dependant on the northern industrial states, every article of merchandise, ships, mariners, naval architects all came from the north. Without Northern support the South had nothing. The Northern states thought that the slavery should be abolished because of the new idea that it was morally wrong and unessacary for economic advancement but that idea was influenced by the Norths fast growing industrial city's.

Date: Nov 20, 2006

In the 1840's the view of slavery was changing and becoming a hostile battle ground between the regions of the United States. The Northern abolitionists were set on the believe of slavery as an evil do to such things as run away slaves telling their stories, the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, and their own technological advancement which made slavery necessary to them and the South felt that slavery was an unpresidented good because of how the Southern economy was sky-rocketing, the references to slavery in the Bible, and how the slaves were better treated and had better living conditions than most of the people in Europe at the time.

Date: Nov 21, 2006

mrj wrote:

Southern states beleived that the first and most obvious effect of abolishing slavery would be the end of their staple crop, cotton. The southern states were dependant on the northern industrial states, every article of merchandise, ships, mariners, naval architects all came from the north. Without Northern support the South had nothing. The Northern states thought that the slavery should be abolished because of the new idea that it was morally wrong and unessacary for economic advancement but that idea was influenced by the Norths fast growing industrial city's.

Alex, the first sentence is fine. I would suggest connecting the first and the second. Explain that cotton was directly connected to merchandise, ships, etc. The third sentence is a bold pronouncement, but make sure you specify that you're talking about an economic relationship here. The south didn't depend on northern culture or religion, for instance. If anything the north needed the south for political unity, which was ultimately the issue in the Civil War, know what I mean? The last sentence is a bit long and somewhat confusing, even though I see which direction you're going with it. Try rewording it. The last phrase, "but that idea was influenced by the Norths fast growing industrial city's" is also confusing. Is it valid? Didn't the north need southern cotton for its textile industry. Wasn't the south's cotton exports almost half of the nations total exports (important federally for foreign trade)? To say that the cotton exports of the south weren't necessary for the north's industrial advancement is a little disengenous. What do you think? Can you support it with evidence?

Date: Nov 21, 2006

Jarred wrote:

In the 1840's the view of slavery was changing and becoming a hostile battle ground between the regions of the United States. The Northern abolitionists were set on the believe of slavery as an evil do to such things as run away slaves telling their stories, the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, and their own technological advancement which made slavery necessary to them and the South felt that slavery was an unpresidented good because of how the Southern economy was sky-rocketing, the references to slavery in the Bible, and how the slaves were better treated and had better living conditions than most of the people in Europe at the time.

Jarred, you mean 'belief', not 'believe', right? Wow. This one long sucker of a sentence. It needs to be broken like glass. Then think of the arguments you're using: is there a difference between believing in the moral injustice of slavery and the denial of racial inequality? See what I wrote for Tanya's comments. Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) was a good touch. There's a lot more that we haven't got to yet that can also support the north's move towards abolitionism, like the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown raid on Harper's Ferry, and more. You also stated that slavery was necessary to the north. Is that what you meant? You mean 'unprecedented', right? The arguments that you brought up for the south are all sound and you shouldn't have a problem finding evidence to support it. You need to reword it though to make it a bit more organized and formal. Wage slavery is a great point that no one has brought up yet. You want to use that, as twisted as it is, to support the south's case, because many of them actually believed it. A gilded cage is still a cage, especially when its built and guarded by racists.

Date: Nov 21, 2006

mre wrote:

Jarred wrote:

In the 1840's the view of slavery was changing and becoming a hostile battle ground between the regions of the United States. The Northern abolitionists were set on the believe of slavery as an evil do to such things as run away slaves telling their stories, the book Uncle Tom's Cabin, and their own technological advancement which made slavery necessary to them and the South felt that slavery was an unpresidented good because of how the Southern economy was sky-rocketing, the references to slavery in the Bible, and how the slaves were better treated and had better living conditions than most of the people in Europe at the time.

Jarred, you mean 'belief', not 'believe', right? Wow. This one long sucker of a sentence. It needs to be broken like glass. Then think of the arguments you're using: is there a difference between believing in the moral injustice of slavery and the denial of racial inequality? See what I wrote for Tanya's comments. Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) was a good touch. There's a lot more that we haven't got to yet that can also support the north's move towards abolitionism, like the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott decision, the John Brown raid on Harper's Ferry, and more. You also stated that slavery was necessary to the north. Is that what you meant? You mean 'unprecedented', right? The arguments that you brought up for the south are all sound and you shouldn't have a problem finding evidence to support it. You need to reword it though to make it a bit more organized and formal. Wage slavery is a great point that no one has brought up yet. You want to use that, as twisted as it is, to support the south's case, because many of them actually believed it. A gilded cage is still a cage, especially when its built and guarded by racists.

First of all, thank you. Yes I did mean belief and i meant to put unnecessary to the north I guess I type to fast sometimes and forget to read what I wrote - bad habit.

(you got to love these things!!!)

Date: Nov 21, 2006

AP US History 1 Curt J. Santos

DBQ #5 Slavery and Sectional Attitudes 4-310 11/20/06 A

Q.) By the 1840’s many northern Americans had come to see slavery as an evil, while many southerners defended the institution as a positive good. What arguments did each side marshal in support of its case?

By the 1840’s, around the time of the Second Great Awakening there had been many views on the institution of slavery by both the northerners and the southerners. The northerners saw the institution of slavery as a great evil especially during the time of their religious awakening. The southerners on the other hand saw it as a way of making the country economically strong and as a positive thing. The arguments used by the South was the fact that their economy was severely based on the use of slaves to do the work on plantations and that slavery was justified, while the North regarded slavery as morally evil and they believed it was not necessary for the economic advancement of the country. The only thing was that the North was based on industry and the South was based on agriculture and it would be a very hard thing to shrink the agricultural part of the South and change it into the industrial cities in the North. So there begins the fight between northern abolitionists and southern plantation owners over the issue of slavery.

*Well thats the rought draft hope u like it and Jarred these things are sweet

Date: Nov 21, 2006

Curt wrote:

By the 1840’s, around the time of the Second Great Awakening there had been many views on the institution of slavery by both the northerners and the southerners. The northerners saw the institution of slavery as a great evil especially during the time of their religious awakening. The southerners on the other hand saw it as a way of making the country economically strong and as a positive thing. The arguments used by the South was the fact that their economy was severely based on the use of slaves to do the work on plantations and that slavery was justified, while the North regarded slavery as morally evil and they believed it was not necessary for the economic advancement of the country. The only thing was that the North was based on industry and the South was based on agriculture and it would be a very hard thing to shrink the agricultural part of the South and change it into the industrial cities in the North. So there begins the fight between northern abolitionists and southern plantation owners over the issue of slavery.

Curt, good intro. Draw a specific connection between the religious revival and the abolition movement and the second sentence becomes stronger. In the third sentence, we can assume that making the nation economically strong is positive. You don't need to state it. This sentence: "The arguments used by the South was the fact that their economy was severely based on the use of slaves to do the work on plantations and that slavery was justified, while the North regarded slavery as morally evil and they believed it was not necessary for the economic advancement of the country" needs to be reworded. Why not simplify? "The south's dependence on plantation economics justified slavery in their eyes while the north's religious transformations made slavery morally repugnant for them." The last two sentences run into the common problem of simplifying things way too much. It's much, much more complex than that. The reasons the south didn't industrialize are many. Southern culture, a general unfriendliness to immigrants, differing natural resources, land and wealth distribution, geography, and aristocratic political representation all play a part, as well as other factors. Dig deep in the research and you'll continually be amazed at how complex American history can really be.

Date: Nov 21, 2006

Remember, you can and should all reply to each other. Don't be

of asking

from each other. You'll be much more

and get more

. Some of you may even feel like

and

'ing each other's work. Then you won't be

or

Date: Nov 21, 2006

...yeah, you get it.

Date: Nov 21, 2006

In the mid nineteenth century a majority of people living in the North saw slavery as an unnecessary and immoral injury to human beings for labor. Many Southerners, however, thought slavery was an important factor of their economic prosperity. The North felt slavery was hypocritical, technologically inept, and harmful to all of those who were involved, while the South saw it as a fair and economic necessity. The North was fearful of the image that slavery would give America to the rest of the world, and they knew how contradictory the South’s views of the slaves themselves were as compared with the importance of the jobs which were given to some of these slaves. They also thought that slavery proved how far behind the South was in technology, compared to the factories which were being operated in the North. The South argued that the North treated their own factory workers no better than the slaves on their plantations, and that slaves were, sometimes, even, treated better than those free workers. The South felt that the North’s main reason for opposition to slavery was their own selfishness, the South felt as if it could not survive without forced labor and they would never be able to keep up with the growth of their main crop, cotton, unless they could keep their source of free labor. In the Northern opposition to slavery the South felt as if they were being attacked and that the North was only trying to take the little source of income which they had.

Date: Nov 21, 2006

Amanda wrote:

In the mid nineteenth century a majority of people living in the North saw slavery as an unnecessary and immoral injury to human beings for labor. Many Southerners, however, thought slavery was an important factor of their economic prosperity. The North felt slavery was hypocritical, technologically inept, and harmful to all of those who were involved, while the South saw it as a fair and economic necessity. The North was fearful of the image that slavery would give America to the rest of the world, and they knew how contradictory the South’s views of the slaves themselves were as compared with the importance of the jobs which were given to some of these slaves. They also thought that slavery proved how far behind the South was in technology, compared to the factories which were being operated in the North. The South argued that the North treated their own factory workers no better than the slaves on their plantations, and that slaves were, sometimes, even, treated better than those free workers. The South felt that the North’s main reason for opposition to slavery was their own selfishness, the South felt as if it could not survive without forced labor and they would never be able to keep up with the growth of their main crop, cotton, unless they could keep their source of free labor. In the Northern opposition to slavery the South felt as if they were being attacked and that the North was only trying to take the little source of income which they had.

Amanda, you gave many, many reasons for each position. For the north, you stated that they thought slavery was an unnecessary and immoral evil, hypocritical, harful to all, and technologically inept, that they were worried about their foreign image, that they thought the south wasn't industrially advanced. For the south you stated that they thought it was essential to their prosperity, that slaves had important jobs, that northern factory workers were treated worse, that the north was selfish (?) in opposing slavery, that forced labor was always better than free labor, and that they were defensive. Can you find the commonalities in all of those positions to summarize your thesis to a few main points? That would definitely help. Think of what you have for evidence that would most effectively support the thesis. Try to crunch it all together and then expand it later on in the essay if you need to, ok?

Date: Nov 21, 2006

Many good arguements come from both sides of the country on why slavery should continue or be abolished. The North felt owning slaves was morally wrong and also unneccesary, due to the fact that they had economic advantages over the South. In the South's eyes, slaves made work easier and cheaper, because they had mass amounts of them and could pay them nearly nothing and get away with it.

yeah i probably need a lot of help!

Date: Nov 21, 2006

Included amongst the many arguments for slavery are that of the Southerners that slavery was needed for their economy, because without it their plantations would fall apart; while some Northerners against slavery argued that human beings shouldn’t be the property of another person, these abolitionists didn’t agree with the concept of slavery and how the slaves were treated.

Date: Nov 21, 2006

mr. e, that was my redo thesis ^^

Date: Nov 21, 2006

Jarred, i think you did an awesome job describing both points of view. You have many reasons supporting each side of the argument.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

By the 1840s there was a surge of new ideas and religious beliefs throughout the United States. Almost every literate man had a some sort of motive to help reform society. As a result, slavery became a major issue throughout the entire country. This issue greatly defined the northern regions from the southern regions. Northerners saw slavery as an evil because of certain religious interpretations from the Bible, many heart touching stories written by abolitionists and their industrial economy, which did not call for a demand for labor like southern agriculture did. The south, on the other hand, had been using slave labor on their plantations since the colonies. Therefore, they used slavery references from the Bible to twist morality in their favor and southern politicians implied that blacks lived a better life on plantations rather than living as an American citizen in a very discriminatory society. The south seemed to put their income ahead of morality, even if an entire group of people were forced into slavery because of their race. However, each side held a valid arguement, which unfortunately leads to the separations of states and the breakdown of the union during the civil war.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Tanya wrote:

Included amongst the many arguments for slavery are that of the Southerners that slavery was needed for their economy, because without it their plantations would fall apart; while some Northerners against slavery argued that human beings shouldn’t be the property of another person, these abolitionists didn’t agree with the concept of slavery and how the slaves were treated.

__________________________________________________________

Hey Tanya,

You've got good info and your thesis is a decent size... compared to my thesis that is. The only thing that I'm having trouble with is the begining of the thesis... "Included amongst the many arguments for slavery are that of the Southerners that slavery was needed for their economy...". I dont know if I'm reading it wrong. I probably am. I get what you are saying but the words are a little scrambly. Dont kill me

But other than that... Great Job!! I don't know what else to comment. =] Later.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Amanda Wrote:

In the mid nineteenth century a majority of people living in the North saw slavery as an unnecessary and immoral injury to human beings for labor. Many Southerners, however, thought slavery was an important factor of their economic prosperity. The North felt slavery was hypocritical, technologically inept, and harmful to all of those who were involved, while the South saw it as a fair and economic necessity. The North was fearful of the image that slavery would give America to the rest of the world, and they knew how contradictory the South’s views of the slaves themselves were as compared with the importance of the jobs which were given to some of these slaves. They also thought that slavery proved how far behind the South was in technology, compared to the factories which were being operated in the North. The South argued that the North treated their own factory workers no better than the slaves on their plantations, and that slaves were, sometimes, even, treated better than those free workers. The South felt that the North’s main reason for opposition to slavery was their own selfishness, the South felt as if it could not survive without forced labor and they would never be able to keep up with the growth of their main crop, cotton, unless they could keep their source of free labor. In the Northern opposition to slavery the South felt as if they were being attacked and that the North was only trying to take the little source of income which they had.

______________________________________________

Woah Baby! Thats one long thesis. You have got so much information... which is great! Thats really good you have so much to talk about. I wish I had all those ideas for my essay. But still, the thesis should probably be shortened, then add some of that information to the essay itself. lol. seriously, thats all there is to comment on. I mean, the info is perfect and everything else.

talk to you later, katie.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

what's going on jarred. i was reading your thesis statement and im not sure if maybe im reading it wrong but the second sentence of your paragraph doesnt seem to make much sense when it says "slavery as an evil do to such things as run away slaves telling their stories". Along with that maybe you shouldn't consider my next statment, but i dont beleive that you need to include technological advancements as a reason for a need for slavery. if anything the technological advancments made slaves jobs somewhate easier. maybe you could just mention how the south beleived slavery to be necessary because of how much work it took to grow cotton and make it a usuable product. Im no teacher so maybe my comment maybe unecessary but thats just how i see things. Other than that i thought your thesis to be well written. the use of the word unpresidented is pretty sweet.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

DBQ 5 - thesis

The North argued that the slaves’ right to freedom trumped any reasons southerners had to continue practicing slavery, such as their economic dependency on slaves, the idea that African-Americans were less civilized, and the view that blacks were better off as slaves than northern factory workers.

---

feel free to tear it apart

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Julia wrote:

Many good arguements come from both sides of the country on why slavery should continue or be abolished. The North felt owning slaves was morally wrong and also unneccesary, due to the fact that they had economic advantages over the South. In the South's eyes, slaves made work easier and cheaper, because they had mass amounts of them and could pay them nearly nothing and get away with it.

yeah i probably need a lot of help!

"...mass ammounts of..." = most. excellent.
and don't be ashamed, lol, this is the place to be!

ok anywho... I might not know what I'm talking about here, but I think you should try to smush your thesis into one or two sentences.
However, before you do that, you might want to clarify your points, as well as list just a few more reasons for the North and South.

I don't know, I'm just tyring here, too...

Date: Nov 22, 2006

thanks alex! believe it or not you helped me.

but if i get a bad grade....

just kidding!!

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Julia wrote:

Many good arguements come from both sides of the country on why slavery should continue or be abolished. The North felt owning slaves was morally wrong and also unneccesary, due to the fact that they had economic advantages over the South. In the South's eyes, slaves made work easier and cheaper, because they had mass amounts of them and could pay them nearly nothing and get away with it.

Julia, depending on your perspective you can definitely say that many arguments came from both sides, but 'good ones' in defense of slavery might clash with many current attitudes, know what I mean? When you say that the north thought slavery was unnecessary because the north had advantages, do you mean that the north thought it was unncessary for them (the north) or for the south? And why would the north's economic advantages make slavery unecessary in the south? For the south, remember that those who owned slaves were the upper, upper class. It was generally the top 5-10% who owned almost all of them. That means 90% or more had none. They had no problem working for themselves. Careful with simplifications and generalizations. It's a lot more complex down there.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Tanya wrote:

Included amongst the many arguments for slavery are that of the Southerners that slavery was needed for their economy, because without it their plantations would fall apart; while some Northerners against slavery argued that human beings shouldn’t be the property of another person, these abolitionists didn’t agree with the concept of slavery and how the slaves were treated.

Tanya, there are more justifications in the south besides the theory that the plantation economy would fall apart (which is very debatable). Also remember that there were different kinds of abolitionists. There were radical ones who wanted an end to slavery immediately, and there were gradual abolitions, who saw it as a process over time. Do you feel that you can use all or most of the documents with those two points (plantation economics & moral arguments)?

Date: Nov 22, 2006

kathryn m. wrote:

By the 1840s there was a surge of new ideas and religious beliefs throughout the United States. Almost every literate man had a some sort of motive to help reform society. As a result, slavery became a major issue throughout the entire country. This issue greatly defined the northern regions from the southern regions. Northerners saw slavery as an evil because of certain religious interpretations from the Bible, many heart touching stories written by abolitionists and their industrial economy, which did not call for a demand for labor like southern agriculture did. The south, on the other hand, had been using slave labor on their plantations since the colonies. Therefore, they used slavery references from the Bible to twist morality in their favor and southern politicians implied that blacks lived a better life on plantations rather than living as an American citizen in a very discriminatory society. The south seemed to put their income ahead of morality, even if an entire group of people were forced into slavery because of their race. However, each side held a valid arguement, which unfortunately leads to the separations of states and the breakdown of the union during the civil war.

Kathryn, the reform movement was instrumental in getting abolitionists going but the southerners had territorial expansion to get their motor running. They wanted slavery to expand. Both were catalysts of this clash of arguments. You might want to present both sides, not just the reform one - to balance it out. Which Biblical interpretations were you considering for the north? The Old Testament is scattered with passive acceptance of slavery (because of the context of the times). In fact, religioustolerance.org states that there are no passages in the scriptures opposing slavery. 'Since the colonies' is a bit ambiguous. You might mean 'since the colonial era'. It's interesting - your last argument - that the southern politicians in your thesis justified slavery but pointed out discrimination in the north. Can you support that with evidence?

Date: Nov 22, 2006

mrj wrote:

what's going on jarred. i was reading your thesis statement and im not sure if maybe im reading it wrong but the second sentence of your paragraph doesnt seem to make much sense when it says "slavery as an evil do to such things as run away slaves telling their stories". Along with that maybe you shouldn't consider my next statment, but i dont beleive that you need to include technological advancements as a reason for a need for slavery. if anything the technological advancments made slaves jobs somewhate easier. maybe you could just mention how the south beleived slavery to be necessary because of how much work it took to grow cotton and make it a usuable product. Im no teacher so maybe my comment maybe unecessary but thats just how i see things. Other than that i thought your thesis to be well written. the use of the word unpresidented is pretty sweet.

mre thinks mrj is on track (mostly).

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Alex Z. wrote:

The North argued that the slaves’ right to freedom trumped any reasons southerners had to continue practicing slavery, such as their economic dependency on slaves, the idea that African-Americans were less civilized, and the view that blacks were better off as slaves than northern factory workers.

Alex Z, hmm... the right to freedom on one hand... economic dependence, racial superiority/inferiority, and wage slavery arguments on the other... hmm... and the winner is... FREEDOM! Let it ring! Ok. In all seriousness, I would balance your thesis a bit more by explaining specifically what the northern arguments/justifications were for the right to freedom.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Julia wrote:

but if i get a bad grade....

To prevent a Zarecki family trip to the ER room at St. Luke's, I guess Julia will have to get a good grade.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

mre wrote:

Alex Z. wrote:

The North argued that the slaves’ right to freedom trumped any reasons southerners had to continue practicing slavery, such as their economic dependency on slaves, the idea that African-Americans were less civilized, and the view that blacks were better off as slaves than northern factory workers.

Alex Z, hmm... the right to freedom on one hand... economic dependence, racial superiority/inferiority, and wage slavery arguments on the other... hmm... and the winner is... FREEDOM! Let it ring! Ok. In all seriousness, I would balance your thesis a bit more by explaining specifically what the northern arguments/justifications were for the right to freedom.

Mr. E, is it alright if I quote Document D a bit in the early part of my thesis and elaborate in my second sentence? and on?

Date: Nov 22, 2006

mre wrote:

Julia wrote:

but if i get a bad grade....

To prevent a Zarecki family trip to the ER room at St. Luke's, I guess Julia will have to get a good grade.

har. dee. har. har.

keep ing Mr. E...

...or...

let's go:

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Ok heres what i got.....

THe.........

MENTAL BLOCK!!!!

Date: Nov 22, 2006

J.Furtado wrote:

Ok heres what i got.....

THe.........

MENTAL BLOCK!!!!

Hey "J," the more you think you're 'frustrated,' the more you will be. I know it sounds crazy, but just relax and write stuff, and ask for thesis help after some writing, and you should be fine. Just go for it. Read through other thesises (sp?) and feedback to get ideas maybe?

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Ok why has zarecki challenged Mr. E. to a matrix fight cmon now guys be peacefull lol. Jess try using some points brought up by other people in your own words and incoperate then into a sentence. Yeh look at that Mr. E. Santos is on rodle today first debate now teacher advice.

Mr. E and Zarecki please and end matrix fights lol.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Alex Z. wrote:

mre wrote:

Alex Z. wrote:

The North argued that the slaves’ right to freedom trumped any reasons southerners had to continue practicing slavery, such as their economic dependency on slaves, the idea that African-Americans were less civilized, and the view that blacks were better off as slaves than northern factory workers.

Alex Z, hmm... the right to freedom on one hand... economic dependence, racial superiority/inferiority, and wage slavery arguments on the other... hmm... and the winner is... FREEDOM! Let it ring! Ok. In all seriousness, I would balance your thesis a bit more by explaining specifically what the northern arguments/justifications were for the right to freedom.

Mr. E, is it alright if I quote Document D a bit in the early part of my thesis and elaborate in my second sentence? and on?

Yes, although remember that Lincoln also said: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." -Abraham Lincoln in a 1862 letter to Horace Greely

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Mr. E Wrote:

Kathryn, the reform movement was instrumental in getting abolitionists going but the southerners had territorial expansion to get their motor running. They wanted slavery to expand. Both were catalysts of this clash of arguments. You might want to present both sides, not just the reform one - to balance it out. Which Biblical interpretations were you considering for the north? The Old Testament is scattered with passive acceptance of slavery (because of the context of the times). In fact, religioustolerance.org states that there are no passages in the scriptures opposing slavery. 'Since the colonies' is a bit ambiguous. You might mean 'since the colonial era'. It's interesting - your last argument - that the southern politicians in your thesis justified slavery but pointed out discrimination in the north. Can you support that with evidence?
____________________________________________________________

Hey Mr. E, Thanks for the tips

When I mentioned biblical references, I would refer to the bondage of the Israelites. I'm sure they use ... a billion more references from the bible, but the Israelites is a more common reference.

When i mentioned how southern politicians justified slavery and then pointed out discrimination.... i was only refering to the documents which we have to use for our DBQ. In document A, Governor George McDuffie to the south Carolina legislature explained that slavery actually benefited the blacks because of such a discriminatory society. I dont know. That whole idea of slavery being benefitial seems like a big excuse to keep slavery in the southern states. its hard for me to believe that these planation owners owned slaves for black's benefit, after they passed the slave codes, etc. I thought it would be an interesting topic to add in my essay.

I tweaked my thesis a bit. It makes a little more sense and it is a little shorter:

Northerners saw slavery as an evil and cited the Bible's many references to all humans having souls and the bondage of the Israelites. The North's indstrial economy required less human labor than agriculture; the south, on the other hand, relied on slave labor for their plantations since the colonial era. They also cited scripture to support the moralilty of slavery and claimed that blacks actually benefited from the slave life. But popular literature from the north, such as "Uncle Tom's Cabin," brought attention to the pitiful condition of slavery. The south put their profits ahead of principles, even if an entire group of people were forced into salvery because of their race. << Is that too opinionative? In Abraham Lincoln's speech at peoria, Illinois, he mentioned the immorality of America's "Greedy chase to make profit of the Negro..." (Document D). However each side put forward increasingly vehemnt arguments, which ultimately caused the separation of religious denominations (i.e. Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists), then northern and southern states, and finally the division of the union.

Thanks,

Kathryn

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Alex Z. wrote:

Hey "J," the more you think you're 'frustrated,' the more you will be. I know it sounds crazy, but just relax and write stuff, and ask for thesis help after some writing, and you should be fine. Just go for it. Read through other thesises (sp?) and feedback to get ideas maybe?

That's EXACTLY the point of the forum. Long live the forum! You the man, Alex.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Curt wrote:

Yeh look at that Mr. E. Santos is on rodle today first debate now teacher advice. Mr. E and Zarecki please and end matrix fights lol.

Truly, the teacher has become the student. And Curt, wait until you see how the votes came out for Andrew Jackson. I think you'll be surprised.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Yeh we will see but i think i got a future in like debate or being a lawyer cuz i just like blew up on the other side.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

mre wrote:

Curt wrote:

Yeh look at that Mr. E. Santos is on rodle today first debate now teacher advice. Mr. E and Zarecki please and end matrix fights lol.

Truly, the teacher has become the student. And Curt, wait until you see how the votes came out for Andrew Jackson. I think you'll be surprised.

Yes, I too apologize for my (somewhat) out-of-place actions.
...but now I'm just curious as to how the debate turned out...

and yes Curt, you did blow up, good job

and I'll stop taking up space...
now

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Kathryn M. wrote:

When I mentioned biblical references, I would refer to the bondage of the Israelites. I'm sure they use ... a billion more references from the bible, but the Israelites is a more common reference.
When i mentioned how southern politicians justified slavery and then pointed out discrimination.... i was only refering to the documents which we have to use for our DBQ. In document A, Governor George McDuffie to the south Carolina legislature explained that slavery actually benefited the blacks because of such a discriminatory society. I dont know. That whole idea of slavery being benefitial seems like a big excuse to keep slavery in the southern states. its hard for me to believe that these planation owners owned slaves for black's benefit, after they passed the slave codes, etc. I thought it would be an interesting topic to add in my essay.

I tweaked my thesis a bit. It makes a little more sense and it is a little shorter:

Northerners saw slavery as an evil and cited the Bible's many references to all humans having souls and the bondage of the Israelites. The North's indstrial economy required less human labor than agriculture; the south, on the other hand, relied on slave labor for their plantations since the colonial era. They also cited scripture to support the moralilty of slavery and claimed that blacks actually benefited from the slave life. But popular literature from the north, such as "Uncle Tom's Cabin," brought attention to the pitiful condition of slavery. The south put their profits ahead of principles, even if an entire group of people were forced into salvery because of their race. << Is that too opinionative? In Abraham Lincoln's speech at peoria, Illinois, he mentioned the immorality of America's "Greedy chase to make profit of the Negro..." (Document D). However each side put forward increasingly vehemnt arguments, which ultimately caused the separation of religious denominations (i.e. Northern Baptists and Southern Baptists), then northern and southern states, and finally the division of the union.

Kathryn, the Israelites owned slaves as well. Hagar was Abraham's slave, for instance. I don't mean to cast stones. I just want to point it out as part of the story and within the context of their times. Your point on southern politicians has a lot to do with racism, not just discrimination. Specifically, it deals with the difference between personal racism and institutional racism. Also saying that the north's economy required less human labor doesn't do justice to the sheer numbers of unskilled factory jobs that would open up in the end of the 1800's. It required even more human labor. Advances in technology made growing food less human intensive over time but the process of building and maintaining machines wouldn't decrease its human component until robotization spread after WW2. Also, I like your last sentence.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Mr E Wrote:

Kathryn, the Israelites owned slaves as well. Hagar was Abraham's slave, for instance. I don't mean to cast stones. I just want to point it out as part of the story and within the context of their times. Your point on southern politicians has a lot to do with racism, not just discrimination. Specifically, it deals with the difference between personal racism and institutional racism. Also saying that the north's economy required less human labor doesn't do justice to the sheer numbers of unskilled factory jobs that would open up in the end of the 1800's. It required even more human labor. Advances in technology made growing food less human intensive over time but the process of building and maintaining machines wouldn't decrease its human component until robotization spread after WW2. Also, I like your last sentence.
_____________________________________________________

Mr. E,

The biblical passages I am refering to include the israelites bondage which takes place in egypt... who did not own slaves. I was going to use your reference involving Hagar for the South's biblical references. I have this quote from Jefferson Davis... he said "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." <http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~hoemann/jdinaug.html>

But there are just so many points of view. I dont know if i can add all this information in one DBQ. If i do will i get a 9??? hehe. I cant stay up that late, I'll die.

Also, I will probably weave in your idea of racism in the southern states. That is a very important reason why the southerners believed slavery benefitted blacks. I wish i couldnt broaden my mind to think so deeply in these DBQ questions.

Oh, what you said about labor demands... i agree. But those jobs didnt develop in mass until after the civil war when slavery was resolved.

Okay mr. e. i have to finish up this DBQ and get to sleep. If i continue to responde tomorrow... will i continue to get extra credit?? hehe. I like this blog thing.

Date: Nov 22, 2006

Between the years of 1830-1860, slavery was still thought of as a greatly

debated topic. Strong arguements come from both the Northern and the Southern

parts of the United States on why slavery should continue or be abolished. The North

felt owning slaves was morally wrong and also unneccesary, due to the fact that they had

technological advantages and thought success could come to part in other ways, and also

didn't have to experience the need of workers. In other words, the North wanted to

abolish slavery. In the South's eyes, slaves made work easier and cheaper, because they

had mass amounts of them and could pay them nearly nothing and get away with it,

therefore hoping slavery would continue.

my newer thesis.

ps. mr. everett i sent you an email on what else i have. need a little help

ps. sorry about starting a fight haha