Regardless of how much inferior a slaveholder may perceive his salves, it is obvious that his "property" looks similar, has similar needs, and has similar feelings.
Slaves were treated as human chattel to be traded, sold, used, and ranked not among beings, but among things, as an article of property to the owner or possessor....
It may seem extraordinary today but, just less than 200 years ago, many people throughout Europe, Africa and the Americas saw nothing wrong in the idea that one human being could own another. The ‘owned' person or ‘slave' had no rights.
Their ability to defend the institution of slavery as a good for society can be considered through three justifications: socio-political, economic/socio-economic, and religious.
Many believed that the institution of slavery was the lesser of two evils in terms of providing benefits for workers, others believed that it was at the very foundation of a free society to own slaves and still others saw it merely as an expedient means to an economic end.
It is clear that the “WillieLynch Speech” is a late 20th century invention because of thenumerous reasons outlined in this essay.I would advance that the likely candidate for such a superficial speechis an African American male in the 20s-30s age range, who probably minored inBlack Studies in college. He had a limited knowledge of 18th century,but unfortunately he fooled many uncritical Black people.
For citizens who view the world in a way that makes slavery and abortion morally analogous, there is also a compelling political parallel between and v. . Each decision gave rise to vibrant oppositional political movements, and the decisions required conscientious citizens to think through the Supreme Court’s role in the scheme of constitutional government. “When it comes to cases such as and ,” Robert George ,
For the past forty years, many citizens have stubbornly refused to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal, and the Supreme Court has been powerless to settle the political conflict over abortion. Recent legislative restrictions on late-term abortion in Arizona and Texas provide the salient point of political conflict today. As debate over the morally and politically divisive issue of abortion continues, it is important for our friends on the left to understand why many social conservatives find analogies between slavery and abortion to be compelling—and why careless denunciations of the analogy ring hollow.
A simplified version of this common legal argument is as follows. found a constitutional right to own slaves in the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause; v. found a constitutional right to an abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Yet neither clause is meant to confer substantive rights, and neither slavery nor abortion appears in the actual text of the clauses in question (which simply stipulate that the government will not deprive any “person” of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law”). Therefore, the argument goes, any judge who gives the Due Process Clause a substantive gloss is illicitly substituting his own policy preferences for those of the legislature.
In addition to the argument that laws protecting slavery and abortion each sanction and privatize a great evil, many judicial conservatives have directly compared the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in two of the Court’s landmark decisions: (1857) and (1973). During an unscripted moment in the 2004 presidential debates, for example, President George W. Bush offered the “ case” as one “type of person” he would not appoint to the Supreme Court.
They see that the slaves in their present condition in the South are comfortable and happy; they see them advancing in intelligence; they see the kindest relations existing between them and their masters; they see them provided for in age and sickness, in infancy and in disability; they see them in useful employment, restrained from the vicious indulgences to which their inferior nature inclines them; they see our penitentiaries never filled, and our poor-houses usually empty.
one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned.
Others frequently draw comparisons between slavery and abortion to highlight some analogous legal doctrine or political principle. Before announcing his support for abortion rights during his bid for the presidency in 1984, Jesse Jackson argued in a 1977 Newsletter that if