Slavery Archives - AccuTeach

Synopsis:

In this lesson students will read about the controversy surrounding a book that was written. In this controversy a magazine outlet, The Economist, took offensive to a book that postulated that today’s economy is a direct descendant of the slave-economy. So we will read the review left by The Economist. After we have read the review of the book, we will explore the author’s response to the review of his book.

Essential Question:

How does the point of view of an author affect their interpretation of events?
Lesson: Point of View
Time: 2 hours (2 days)

Standards:

ELACC5RI6: Analyze multiple accounts of the same event or topic, noting important similarities and differences in the point of view they represent.

Materials:

The Economist’s review of the book located at The Econonomist.

LA Times Review located here.

New York Times Review Located here: (Caution: This article quotes from sections of the book that include information about rape and prostitution)

The author’s response to the reviews of his book, especially the negative reviews of his book, located here.

Mini Lesson:

The last time we met we spoke about the how the point of view of authors and writers influence the way that they write about stories and events. For example, when we read the stories of the Three Little Pigs, we explored that story from different points of view. Well, today we are going to be exploring something that is current and is still impacting our lives today, whether directly or indirectly; the issue of slavery. There is a recently published book written by Professor Edward Baptist. In his book, The Half Has Never Been Told, Professor Baptist states that the effects of slavery can still be seen today. Well, he received much praise and criticism for his book at the same time. We will examine various reviews of his book and look at the author’s direct response to reviews of his book, especially the review from The Economist’s.

Guided Practice:

Students will then venture off into their groups, and they will receive copies of the review/s of his book. The students, in groups, will formulate a response based on the readings that you assigned to them. Personally, I would assign the LA Times review, The Economist’s review and the author’s response to the review. They will summarize their readings on chart paper and share their responses with the class. Additionally, you could assign the New York Time’s version to students who are advanced readers, or you can share this as a whole-class, teacher led reading.

Independent Practice:

In responding to the various readings, the students will chose to write a response to any of the publishers. In their response, they will either agree or disagree based on the points that they have given and provide their own point of view.

Black Gold of the South

No matter the various reasons given for the eventual outbreak of the American Civil War, one thing remains certain: the main reason for the Civil War (1861-1864) can be traced back to one giant reason; economics (the making, using and passing on of wealth). However, the two most cited reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 are often blamed on the issues of States’ Rights and Slavery.

The Production Engine of the South

Slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy. Given the South’s heavy reliance on labor intensive agricultural production of cotton, tobacco and sugarcane, a vast labor force was needed to drive this production. This labor force was primarily made up of enslaved Africans. Even after those crops were harvested from fields, slave labor was utilized in factories to convert some of the raw goods into value-added products, and to ready those materials and goods for the export markets either within the United States or overseas.

Slaves and Slavery: The Commodity

Slavery brought tremendous wealth to many farmers in the slave holding states. Wealthier farmers had bigger plantations, and therefore they needed more slaves. Having slaves was a symbol of wealth and prestige, and the more slaves you had the more power and influence you had on local or even national politics. The Africans in bondage were chattel. This means that they were a commodity, an item that can be traded or bought and sold. The value of all of the slaves in the United States was more valuable than anything else in the United States of America at the time. By looking at the chart, figure C, you can see that slaves were among the most important commodity of the United States. For example, the value of the slave population was almost 3 times more than the total value of capital invested in banks in both the free and slave holding states combined.

Figure C: [1]

Election of Abraham Lincoln

During the run-up to the election of 1860 there was a bitter debate among Democrats about what to do about slavery. Southern Democrats wanted the party to champion the virtues of slavery; however, Northern Democrats wanted the slave issue to be solved using popular sovereignty. That meant that when new states joined the Union, the people of that state would vote on whether or not they wanted to be a slave state or a free state. On the other hand, Southern Democrats wanted a balance of free and slave States whenever new states joined the Union. This was the South’s effort to maintain their voting power in government. This would guarantee, at least, that the South would have equal amounts of representatives in the Senate. By law, each state has a representative in the Senate no matter the size or population of that state. This maintains the balance of power in government, therefore, larger and more populous states would not have absolute or total power. This divide caused a huge rift within the Democratic Party. As a result of this divide, the party practically became two parties: the Southern Democrats and the Northern Democrats.

The possibility of Lincoln’s victory sent tremors through the South. The four parties that were vying for the National Election were the Southern Democrats, Northern Democrats, Republican Party and the Constitutional Union. The Constitutional Union had a strong following among non-seceding and bordering states; they are sometimes referred to as neutral states. It is important to note that even though neutral states did not secede, some of them eventually fielded volunteers with most of them joining the Confederate Army. With the Southern Economies so reliant on the slave economy, Southerners felt as though a Lincoln victory would be the end of their lifestyles and way of life; especially with slogans, art and whispers coming out of the North that Lincoln was going to bring liberation to the slaves.

Many of Lincoln’s pro abolitionists encouraged the liberation of the slave rhetoric that further frightened Southerners at the prospect of losing, not just their slaves, but maybe the most valuable thing they owned. Even one of Lincoln’s own campaign songs championed the liberation of the slaves. When election came around, many Southerners went to vote without Abraham Lincoln’s name on ballots; that is because his name was removed from the ballot in Southern States. Therefore, in essence, there were two elections to elect one leader and a further North-South division of the country. Eventually, the North selected Abraham Lincoln. By looking at the table below you can see that Lincoln won the election based on the popular vote: the majority of the electorate and on the amount of Electoral Votes (EV).

Table of Election Day Winners

Map of Election Day winners

States’ Rights (Nullification)

During campaigning for the elections of 1860, Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln, promised the nation and slave holding states that he would not abolish slavery if he won elections. However, Southern Democrats did not trust him, because Lincoln was being heavily supported by Northern abolitionists and free Blacks in the North. Therefore, the Southerners threatened to leave the Union (Nullification) under the cover of States’ Rights. The idea behind States’ Rights is that states are free to make decisions on their own terms and in ways that are in the best interest of the states. With the Missouri Compromise holding the balance of power, neither section of the country had voting rights over the other.

The Southern states were of the belief that Northerners were constantly attacking their way of life. Many Northerners were willfully breaking laws that were meant to protect slave holding states. These laws included the Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act made it a crime for any United States Citizen to help slaves escape to freedom. This law was passed to appease Southern slave holders. Additionally, Southerners felt that they should not be taking orders from the federal government; especially in matters that would cause them to be at a disadvantage. The Fugitive Slave Act angered many people in the North, including abolitionists such as Harriet Beecher Stowe and John Brown.

The Issue of Taxes

As the North’s economy became more industrialized it was looking to expand its market share, especially to the South. However, to encourage southern states to buy products made in America, the government imposed levees, or taxes, on products that were being imported into the United States that were already being produced in the US. This increased levee made importing goods from Europe more expensive, thus forcing Southerners to buy the products from the North at higher prices than if they were an independent country. This increased tensions between the South and the federal government.

Credit:

1. Deyle, Steven. Carry Me Back: The Domestic Slave Trade in American Life. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.

2. “Forcing Slavery down the Throat of a Freesoiler.” Forcing Slavery down the Throat of a Freesoiler. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Aug. 2014.