abraham lincoln against slavery essay

abraham lincoln against slavery essay

The Moral and Political Arguments Against Slavery

1. Introduction

The second premise maintains that a person’s assessment of his own interests is likely to be more acute and sound as far as his own welfare is concerned than another’s assessment is likely to be. Therefore, he is best to employ his energies to secure the achievement of his ends, both for himself and for others with the same interests, to the degree that this is compatible with the like freedom of others. He is more capable of determining the best means to his ends than anyone else is. These premises lead to the widely held opinion that the most effective way to improve the quality of a man’s life is to give him great control over his surroundings and a large workforce available for the execution of his plans.

There is a more general argument against slavery that is much more widely influential and that rests on a more straightforward diagnosis of the essential nature of the practice. This argument is grounded in powerfully intuitive moral premises dating back to the earliest Western philosophy. According to the first premise, it is the nature of human beings to live in the pursuit of their interest and happiness, securing for themselves whatever they believe to be valuable. They ought to be free to pursue these ends, providing that their actions do not interfere with the like freedom of others. These premises are widely held, and the argument against slavery in accordance with them rests heavily on the contention that it involves a very grave violation of these premises, one that ultimately affects the interests of the society as a whole.

2. Historical Background on Slavery

The history of slavery is well-documented. The seizure of Africans from their native land, European voyages, as well as the actual process of exchanging slaves for goods in the Western world and in Africa have been studied and written about for many years. As most African slaves were acquired through warfare, the many wars between African nations and the western commercial wars had direct bearings on the slave trade and the condition of slavery in the Western Hemisphere. The triangular trade existed between Western Europe, Africa, and her colonies, and can be divided into an earlier and later period. In the early period, which lasted until the late 18th century, slave traders delivered their human cargo to the Caribbean islands and to Brazil. In the later period, the United States received an estimated 450,000-650,000 Africans. An estimated 4 million died before reaching the Americas due to the cruel conditions of transportation. This explains the heavy African influence in the Caribbean and Brazil and the importance of slavery in the history of these regions.

A thorough analysis of the moral and political arguments against slavery should begin with an examination of the institution which has enslaved Africans and peoples of African descent throughout history. To address these arguments fully, one must first examine the history of slavery, its effects on the colonized areas, and its ramifications on modern society. Using history as a barometer, we will be able to fully comprehend the arguments against slavery from the moral and political perspectives, as we will appreciate the depth and complexity of the issue. This historical background will lay the groundwork for the final implication of anti-slavery arguments in the modern global context.

3. Abraham Lincoln’s Opposition to Slavery

During conflicts over territorial expansion in the 1840s, Lincoln’s arguments against the extension of slavery were formed. Beginning in 1854, he attempted to limit the expansion of slavery and, as its extension seemed more likely, to prevent it from becoming a permanent part of the nation. After a series of debates in 1858 with Stephen A. Douglas, who had long been a prominent spokesman for popular sovereignty, Lincoln gained national recognition. Though he lost the Senate race to Douglas, the conversations elevated his campaign for the presidency in 1860. More importantly, the debates shaped his opposition to slavery. Defining the issue as the movement toward “africanizing” the whole nation, he reiterated the notion that the Founding Fathers had put slavery in the course of “ultimate extinction”. He asserted that it was the mission of the Republicans to end slavery where it already existed and put it on the path to extinction by keeping it out of the territories.

4. The Moral Case Against Slavery

The main question raised here is whether people of different races or cultures are capable of living together in harmony as equals, and Buckner appears to disapprove of this idea. He emphasizes the ‘tremendous antagonism between different cultures and races’ and suggests that ‘nature itself gives judgment that equality in those circumstances is impossible’. He attempts to prove this via the judgment of nature by looking at the example of mankind’s history, which, as Buckner sees it, is full of examples of conquest of one culture over another. This was present from ‘the days of the Assyrians to the days of the British Empire’; might is right. These cultures that have been conquered and their present are there to be judged, said Buckner. He suggests that these Africans had been brought from an almost lesser civilization than the West Indian slaves were. This, in collusion with the judgment of nature, was a type of natural selection.

The central point of Buckner’s work is to undermine and dismantle Ten O’Clock’s moral case, which he perceives as the main line of defense against slavery. He is especially keen to examine the case in its own time and place. He admits the claims of ‘natural equality’ and the rights of men as ‘true in the abstract’, but wishes to examine whether they should have applied at the time to ‘West Indian savages of the fifteenth century’. With this, Buckner introduces a distinction in time and place between the inhabitants of different cultures. In this case, the ‘gap’ between the white man Ten O’Clock and the black slave.

5. The Political Case Against Slavery

First, slavery is detrimental to representative government and to the dignity of the government, whether liberty or despotism. It is injurious to representative government, for it is a monopoly, and it keeps too many people without a share in the toil and spoils of society. Now, it is a fundamental maxim in the science of politics that the perpetuation of a great inequality of condition is dangerous to free government. For such inequality begets discontent which endangers the public peace. The people who feel they have reasonable cause to be heard and influence in the councils of the state, being a greater share than they now have, will strive to attain it by peaceful means if they can. If this is impossible, they will attempt to secure it by misuse of the coercive power and this segment. So, the history of the slaves or the serfs over the world is not pleasant to the ears of any rulers. But the discontent of the free poor, who are excluded from the law and the influence on the societies code of the laws by which they are to be governed, has actually more influence on increasing the condition of liberty. In many cases, it accelerates the movement of revolutions from despotism to a more liberal government.