Slavery
Thesis:
Slaves managed to be the main beneficiaries of a movement so entirely unintended for them because, in a series of coincidences brought about by certain effects of Northern progress and improvement, the promotion of their interests became profitable to to the concerns of other classes.
Counter-argument:
some might argue that slaves could not have been the primary beneficiaries of the progress and improvement taking place in the North in 19th century america b/c there were very few slaves in the north; they were primarily concentrated in the south which was little affected by these changes and with slaves being so remote from the situation, how could they have benefited from it?
--while the south obviously did not experience the level of transformation that the north and midwestern regions underwent, it did not go untouched by this era of change--it apparently made
southerners even more sealed in their determination to "preserve their way of life based on slavery,"as evidenced by their attempt to secede from the Union. Merely the fact that they reacted so strongly to the changes they perceived in the North indicates the force of the effect that progress had on them.
--the very fact that there were few slaves in the north and so many in the south only contributed to the progress-fueled growing distinction between the North and South, the former of whom could not understand--likely because there were so few slaves in the North--the "semifeudal economic and social system" to which the South was "hopelessly attached" due to their dependence on slavery (p. 5, Sheriff).
Point:
Wage laborers necessary to the realization of improvements in the 19th century began to be perceived as a morally inferior permanent underclass--this elicited fears & changes in opinion involving progress--some (i.e. Bethel society) began to think that one man's (the businessman's) profit came...
Please login to view the full essay...