+1 (909) 375-5650
4982 Parkway Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Assignment Questions

Chattel Slavery and Race Relations

issue related to the 19th century and address the related questions. your research will open up addtitonal lines of inquiry, so the following questions are meant only as a guide

1. chattel slavery and race rleations
– discuss the orgins of racism in the 19th century
-why was slavery readily embraced by southern society
-what were the conditions necessary for its establishment?
-what does your research reveal regarding race and stereotyping?
-how was the issue of race ressolved or not resolved in the civil war?

2. in addition to the above research essay, i must also write a two page persuasive letter or speech written in the voice of the individual from reaserch topic

l Peter Kolchin. American slavery 1619-1877. Canada, 1995
l Robert Louis Paquette and Louis A. Ferleger. Slavery, Secession, And Southern History. Virginia, 2000
l Clement Eaton. The Freedom Of Thought Struggle In The Old South. NY: 49 East 33rd street, 1964
l Donald R. Wright. Slavery.

l The Hutchinson Dictionary of World History. Slavery. 01-01-2002.

l The Hutchinson Inside American History. The Civil War and Slavery. 09-22-2003

Here is teh source for this order:

i ordered history research paper. i want to add these resources for my


lThe coast in human suffering and lives during 19th century slavery.
lHow could people who believe in freedom and the fundamental rights of man
also engage in the enslavement of their fellow human beings?
lwhat relationship between slavery and civil war? What is the result for
civil war related to racism?
lHow to change the view of slavery compare to 18th century and 19th
lWhat are differences between Southern and Northern society? How it effects
to slavery society?
lHow could blacks get freedom from slavery and what are the reasons for
lHow can slaves achieved their slave resistance and what is the result
during 19th century.
lHow slavery effects to 19th century economy?

reosurce information
The Civil War and Slavery

Abraham Lincoln was often criticized for his conduct of the Union war
effort. Horace Greeley, an ardent reformer and editor of The New York
Tribune , took Lincoln to task for his failure to act on the emancipation
of the South’s slaves. On 20 August 1862, Greeley published an open letter
titled ‘The Prayer of Twenty Millions’ in his paper. In the letter, Greeley
accused Lincoln of showing too much consideration for slaveholders and the
institution of slavery. As an abolitionist, Greeley believed that Lincoln
ought to commit the Union to emancipating the millions held in bondage in
the South. Lincoln responded to Greeley’s open letter two days later, on 22
August. In his reply, Lincoln stated his belief that the paramount object
of the war was restoration of the Union. In August 1862, emancipation was
not yet central to the northern war effort. But as Greeley’s letter
suggests, emancipation was becoming important to a growing number of
northerners. Lincoln’s reply indicated his willingness to back emancipation
if it promised to aid the war effort. Northern victory at the battle of
Antietam in Maryland on 17 September 1862 permitted Lincoln to issue a
preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on 22 September. On 1 January 1863,
Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in
Confederate-held territories and made the abolition of slavery a Union war
aim. Reproduced here is ‘The Prayer of Twenty Millions’, a petition printed
in The New York Tribune on 22 August 1862 calling on President Lincoln to
undertake emancipation, and Lincoln’s reply of the same date to Greeley’s


To ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the U. States:

DEAR SIR: I do not intrude to tell you – for you must know already – that a
great proportion of those who triumphed in your election, and of all who
desire the unqualified suppression of the Rebellion now desolating our
country, are sorely disappointed and deeply pained by the policy you seem
to be pursuing with regard to the slaves of Rebels. I write only to set
succinctly and unmistakably before you what we require, what we think we
have a right to expect, and of what we complain.

I. We require of you, as the first servant of the Republic, charged
especially and preeminently with this duty, that you EXECUTE THE LAWS. Most
emphatically do we demand that such laws as have been recently enacted,
which therefore may fairly be presumed to embody the present will and to be
dictated by the present needs of the Republic, and which, after due
consideration have received your personal sanction, shall by you be carried
into full effect, and that you publicly and decisively instruct your
subordinates that such laws exist, that they are binding on all
functionaries and citizens, and that they are to be obeyed to the letter.

II. We think you are strangely and disastrously remise in the discharge of
your official and imperative duty with regard to the emancipating
provisions of the new Confiscation Act. Those provisions were designed to
fight Slavery with Liberty. They prescribe that men loyal to the Union, and
willing to shed their blood in her behalf, shall no longer be held, with
the Nation’s consent, in bondage to persistent, malignant traitors, who for
twenty years have been plotting and for sixteen months have been fighting
to divide and destroy our country. Why these traitors should be treated
with tenderness by you, to the prejudice of the dearest rights of loyal
men, we cannot conceive.

III. We think you are unduly influenced by the counsels, the
representations, the menaces, of certain fossil politicians hailing from
the Border Slave States. Knowing well that the heartily, unconditionally
loyal portion of the White citizens of those States do not expect nor
desire that Slavery shall be upheld to the prejudice of the Union – (for
the truth of which we appeal not only to every Republican residing in those
States, but to such eminent loyalists as H. Winter Davis, Parson Brownlow,
the Union Central Committee of Baltimore, and to The Nashville Union ) – we
ask you to consider that Slavery is everywhere the inciting cause and
sustaining base of treason: the most slaveholding sections of Maryland and
Delaware being this day, though under the Union flag, in full sympathy with
the Rebellion, while the Free-Labor portions of Tennessee and of Texas,
though writhing under the bloody heel of Treason, are unconquerably loyal
to the Union. So emphatically is this the case, that a most intelligent
Union banker of Baltimore recently avowed his confident belief that a
majority of the present Legislature of Maryland, though elected as and
still professing to be Unionists, are at heart desirous of the triumph of
the Jeff. David conspiracy; and when asked how they could be won back to
loyalty, replied – ‘Only by the complete Abolition of Slavery’. It seems to
us the most obvious truth, that whatever strengthens or fortifies Slavery
in the Border States strengthens also Treason, and drives home the wedge
intended to divide the Union. Had you from the first refused to recognize
in those States, as here, any other than unconditional loyalty – that which
stands for the Union, whatever may become of Slavery – those States would
have been, and would be, far more helpful and less troublesome to the
defenders of the Union than they have been, or now are.

IV. We think timid counsels in such a crisis calculated to prove perilous,
and probably disastrous. It is the duty of a Government so wantonly,
wickedly assailed by Rebellion as ours has been to oppose force to force in
a defiant, dauntless spirit. It cannot afford to temporize with traitors
nor with semi-traitors. It must not bribe them to behave themselves, nor
make them fair promises in the hope of disarming their causeless hostility.
Representing a brave and high-spirited people, it can afford to forfeit
anything else better than its own self-respect, or their admiring
confidence. For our Government even to seek, after war has been made on it,
to dispel the affected apprehensions of armed traitors that their cherished
privileges may be assailed by it, is to invite insult and encourage hopes
of its own downfall. The rush to arms of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, is the
true answer at once to the Rebel raids of John Morgan and the traitorous
sophistries of Beriah Magoffin.

V. We complain that the Union cause has suffered, and is now suffering
immensely, from mistaken deference to Rebel Slavery. Had you, Sir, in your
Inaugural Address, unmistakably given notice that, in case the Rebellion
already commenced were persisted in, and your efforts to preserve the Union
and enforce the laws should be resisted by armed force, you would recognize
no loyal persons as rightfully held in Slavery by a traitor , we believe
the Rebellion would therein have received a staggering if not fatal blow.
At that moment, according to the returns of the most recent elections, the
Unionists were a large majority of the voters of the Slave States. But they
were composed in good part of the aged, the feeble, the wealthy, the timid
– the young, the reckless, the aspiring, the adventurous, had already been
largely lured by the gamblers and negro-traders, the politicians by trade
and the conspirators by instinct, into the toils of Treason. Had you then
proclaimed that Rebellion would strike the shackles form the slaves of
every traitor, the wealthy and the cautious would have been supplied with a
powerful inducement to remain loyal. As it was, every coward in the South
soon became a traitor from fear; for Loyalty was perilous, while Treason
seemed comparatively safe. Hence the boasted unanimity of the South – a
unanimity based on Rebel terrorism and the fact that immunity and safety
were found on that side, danger and probable death on ours. The Rebels from
the first have been eager to confiscate, imprison, scourge and kill; we
have fought wolves with the devices of sheep. The result is just what might
have been expected. Tens of thousands are fighting in the Rebel ranks
to-day whose original bias and natural leanings would have led them into

VI. We complain that the Confiscation Act which you approved is habitually
disregarded by your Generals, and that no word of rebuke for them from you
has yet reached the public ear. Fremont’s Proclamation and Hunter’s Order
favoring Emancipation were promptly annulled by you; while Halleck’s No. 3,
forbidding fugitives from Slavery to Rebels to come within his lines – an
order as unmilitary as inhuman, and which received the hearty approbation
of every traitor in America – with scores of like tendency, have never
provoked even your remonstrance. We complain that the officers of your
Armies have habitually repelled rather than invited the approach of slaves
who would have gladly taken the risks of escaping from their Rebel masters
to our camps, bringing intelligence often of inestimable value to the Union
cause. We complain that those who have thus escaped to us, avowing a
willingness to do for us whatever might be required, have been brutally and
madly repulsed, and often surrendered to be scourged, maimed and tortured
by the ruffian traitors, who pretend to own them. We complain that a large
proportion of our regular Army Officers, with many of the Volunteers,
evince far more solicitude to uphold Slavery than to put down the
Rebellion. And finally, we complain that you, Mr. President, elected as a
Republican, knowing well what an abomination Slavery is, and how
emphatically it is the core and essence of this atrocious Rebellion, seem
never to interfere with these atrocities, and never give a direction to
your Military subordinates, which does not appear to have been conceived in
the interest of Slavery rather than of Freedom.

VII. Let me call your attention to the recent tragedy in New-Orleans,
whereof the facts are obtained entirely through Pro-Slavery channels. A
considerable body of resolute, able-bodied men, held in Slavery by two
Rebel sugar-planters in defiance of the Confiscation Act which you have
approved, left plantations thirty miles distant and made their way to the
great mart of the South-West, which they knew to be in the undisputed
possession of the Union forces. They made their way safely and quietly
through thirty miles of Rebel territory, expecting to find freedom under
the protection of our flag. Whether they had or had not heard of the
passage of the Confiscation Act, they reasoned logically that we could not
kill them for deserting the service of their lifelong oppressors, who had
through treason become our implacable enemies. They came to us for liberty
and protection, for which they were willing to render their best service:
they met with hostility, captivity, and murder. The barking of the base
cure of Slavery in this quarter deceives no one – not even themselves. They
say, indeed, that the negroes had no right to appear in New-Orleans armed
(with their implements of daily labor in the cane-field); but no one doubts
that they would gladly have laid these down if assured that they should be
free. They were set upon and maimed, captured and killed, because they
sought the benefit of that act of Congress which they may not specifically
have heard of, but which was none the less the law of the land – which they
had a clear right to the benefit of – which it was somebody’s duty to
publish far and wide, in order that so many as possible should be impelled
to desist from serving Rebels and the Rebellion and come over to the side
of the Union. They sought their liberty in strict accordance with the law
of the land – they were butchered or reenslaved for so doing by the help of
Union soldiers enlisted to fight against Slaveholding Treason. It was
somebody’s fault that they were so murdered – if others shall hereafter
suffer in like manner, in default of explicit and public direction to your
generals that they are to recognize and obey the Confiscation Act, the
world will lay the blame on you . Whether you will choose to hear it
through future History and at the bar of God, I will not judge. I can only

VIII. On the face of this wide earth, Mr. President, there is not one
disinterested, determined, intelligent champion of the Union cause who does
not feel that all attempts to put down the Rebellion and at the same time
uphold its inciting cause are preposterous and futile – that the Rebellion,
if crushed out tomorrow, would be renewed within a year if Slavery were
left in full vigor – that Army officers who remain to this day devoted to
Slavery can at best be but half-way loyal to the Union – and that every
hour of deference to Slavery is an hour of added and deepened peril to the
Union. I appeal to the testimony of your Embassadors in Europe. It is
freely at your service, not at mine. Ask them to tell you candidly whether
the seeming subserviency of your policy to the slaveholding,
slavery-upholding interest, is not the perplexity, the despair of statesmen
of all parties, and be admonished by the general answer!

IX. I close as I began with the statement that what an immense majority of
the Loyal Millions of your countrymen require of you is a frank, declared,
unqualified, upgrudging execution of the laws of the land, more especially
of the Confiscation Act. That Act gives freedom to the slaves of Rebels
coming within our lines, or whom those lines may at any time inclose – we
ask you to render it due obedience by publicly requiring all your
subordinates to recognize and obey it. The Rebels are everywhere using the
late anti-negro riots in the North, as they have long used your officers’
treatment of negroes in the South, to convince the slaves that they have
nothing to hope from a Union success – that we mean in that case to sell
them into a bitterer bondage to defray the cost of the war. Let them
impress this as a truth on the great mass of their ignorant and credulous
bondmen, and the Union will never be restored – never. We cannot conquer
Ten Millions of People united in solid phalanx against us, powerfully aided
by Northern sympathizers and European allies. We must have scouts, guides,
spies, cooks, teamsters, diggers and choppers from the Blacks of the South,
whether we allow them to fight for us or not, or we shall be baffled and
repelled. As one of the millions who would gladly have avoided this
struggle at any sacrifice but that of Principle and Honor, but who now feel
that the triumph of the Union is indispensable not only to the existence of
our country, but to the well-being of mankind, I entreat you to render a
hearty and unequivocal obedience to the law of the land.



New York, August 19, 1862

A Petition to the President.

To the Editor of The N. Y. Tribune.

SIR: Many of your regular subscribers will be much obliged if you will
publish the following petition, and request that all lovers of Liberty and
Union cut it out and circulate it for names. Send in the names . Slavery is
wielding all her weapons to influence the President. Yours truly, H. R.

New-York, Aug. 21, 1862.

To His Excellency, the President of the United States.

SIR: We the undersigned, citizens of the United States, believing that the
hour has come in which all men should plainly avow their sentiments and do
all in their power to put an end to the present iniquitous rebellion,
respectfully represent:

That, in our opinion, the preservation of the Union and the rights of the
great majority of our law-abiding citizens are paramount to the rights of
the minority, and to any and all local laws or institutions.

That the present rebellion was conceived, and is now being prosecuted, for
the purpose not only of destroying the best Government ever established but
to extend and perpetuate a local and barbarous institution.

That it is the duty of the Government to use every exertion, employ every
available agency, and deal blows that shall not only destroy the
superstructure, but sap the foundations of the rebellion.

That no truly loyal citizen will prefer Slavery, polygamy, or any other
local institution, to the salvation of our country.

That, if it becomes necessary, in order to preserve the Union, to take the
property or trespass upon the rights of loyal citizens, the people of the
North will cheerfully bear their share of the burden.

That there has been within a few months a radical change of opinion on the
part of many of your petitioners, and among the citizens of the Free
States, on the subject of American Slavery, and a growing conviction of the
truth of the sentiments once uttered by you, that ‘Slavery and oppression
must cease, or American liberty must perish’. Believing this your
petitioners would respectfully urge you to adopt a policy in accordance
therewith, and thus speedily and finally end the present wicked rebellion.



August 22, 1862.


DEAR SIR: – I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through
the New York Tribune . If there be in it any statements or assumptions of
fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert
them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely
drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in
it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old
friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I ‘seem to be pursuing’, as you say, I have not meant to
leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the
Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer
the Union will be, ‘the Union as it was’. If there be those who would not
save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not
agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they
could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My
paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either
to save or 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 do 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 this Union; and what I forbear, I
forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall
do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I
shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I
shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new
views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my
purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification
of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free.



Horace Greeley and Abraham Lincoln

2. slavey
The Hutchinson Dictionary of World History 01-01-2002


The enforced servitude of one person (a slave) to another or one group to
another. A slave has no personal rights and is considered the property of
another person through birth, purchase, or capture. Slavery goes back to
prehistoric times; it flourished in classical times, but declined in Europe
after the fall of the Roman Empire. During the imperialistic eras of Spain,
Portugal, and Britain in the 16th to 18th centuries, and in the American
South in the 17th to 19th centuries, slavery became a mainstay of an
agricultural labour-intensive economy, with millions of Africans sold to
work on plantations in North and South America. Millions more died during
transportation, but the profits from this trade were enormous. Slavery was
abolished in the British Empire in 1833 and in the USA at the end of the
Civil War (1863?65); however, it continues illegally in some countries

Chattel slavery involves outright ownership of the slave by a master, but
there are forms of partial slavery where an individual is tied to the land,
or to another person, by legal obligations, as in serfdom or indentured
labour. Historically there have been two basic types of chattel slave.
Domestic or house slaves performed menial household duties for their
masters and were often counted as a measure of status. Productive or field
slaves, who usually held a lower status, worked to produce marketable
goods; the African-American slaves who laboured on the American plantations
of the 17th?19th century are an example.

As a social and economic institution, slavery originated in the times when
humans adopted sedentary farming methods of subsistence rather than more
mobile forms of hunting and gathering. It was known in Shang-dynasty China
(c. 1500?1066 BC) and ancient Egypt, and is recorded in the Babylonian code
of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BC), the Sanskrit Laws of Manu (c. 600 BC), and the
Bible. Slave labour became commonplace in ancient Greece and Rome, when it
was used to cultivate large estates and to meet the demand for personal
servants in the towns. Slaves were created through the capture of enemies,
through birth to slave parents, through sale into slavery by free parents,
and as a means of punishment.

After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, slavery persisted in
Arab lands and in central Europe, where many Slavs were captured and taken
as slaves to Germany (hence the derivation of the word). Historically,
slave-owning societies included the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean khanate,
the Inca Empire (Peru), the Sokoto caliphate, and the Hausa (both Nigeria).
Central Asians such as the Mongols, Kazakhs, and various Turkic groups also
kept slaves, as did some American Indian peoples (such as the Comanche and
the Creek). In Spain and Portugal, where the reconquest of the peninsula
from the Moors in the 15th century created an acute shortage of labour,
captured Muslims were enslaved. They were soon followed by slaves from
Africa, imported by the Portuguese prince Henry the Navigator after 1444.
Slaves were used for a wide range of tasks, and a regular trade in slaves
was established between the Gulf of Guinea in West Africa and the slave
markets of the Iberian peninsula.

Slavery became of major economic importance after the 16th century with the
European conquest of South and Central America. Needing a labour force, but
finding the indigenous inhabitants unwilling or unable to cooperate, the
Spanish and Portuguese conquerors used ever-increasing numbers of slaves
brought from Africa. Although slavery already existed in Africa, the status
and relationship of African slaves to their African masters were very
different from chattel slaves. Slaves in Africa were considered part of the
extended family of their masters and held a status similar to children or
wards. The function of indigenous African slavery was to increase the size
of a family or clan rather than to perform labour or to serve as a material

The rise of European capitalism directly influenced the slave trade.
American plantation colonies grew and prospered using slaves as a labour
force. These slaves had a great impact on the sugar and coffee plantations.
A lucrative triangular trade was established ? alcohol, firearms, and
textiles were shipped from Europe to be traded for slaves in Africa, and
the slaves would then be shipped to South or Central America where they
would be traded for staples (such as molasses and later raw cotton). In
1619 the first black slaves landed in an English colony in North America
(at Jamestown, Virginia). At first few slaves arrived from Africa, and
their status as slaves was not legally defined. During the mid 17th century
the colonies established the legal status of slavery, and increasing
numbers of slaves from Africa were used in the South on coffee, tobacco,
sugar, and rice plantations. After the invention of the cotton gin (1793),
the demand for slaves soared, so much so that the slave populations of some
states exceeded the free populations. Africans were also taken to Europe to
work as slaves and servants.

The vast profits from the slave trade to the Americas became a major
element in the British economy and the West Indian trade in general. It has
been estimated that the British slave trade alone shipped 2 million slaves
from Africa to the West Indies between 1680 and 1786. The number of slaves
shipped to the Americas in 1790 alone may have exceeded 70,000. According
to another estimate, during the nearly 400 years of the slave trade, a
total of 15 million Africans were sold into slavery and some 40 million
more lost their lives in transit.

Slaves were usually outsiders, removed from their own cultures but denied
assimilation into their new ones. In the USA, treatment of slaves varied.
Although they were entitled to some rights, such as support during periods
of illness and in old age, they were often denied basic human dignities.
The slave trade meant forced relocation and the breakup of families,
including children from parents. Nevertheless, slaves retained some
cultural elements from Africa, such as religious practices, music, and
food. Some of these have survived and are evident in African-American

Antislavery movements and changes in the political and economic structure
of Europe helped to bring about the abolition of slavery in most of Europe
during the late 18th and early 19th century, followed by abolition in
overseas territories somewhat later.

Only in the southern states of the USA did slavery persist as a major
component of the economy, providing the labour force for the cotton and
other plantations. While the northern states abolished slavery in the
1787?1804 period, the southern states insisted on maintaining the
institution. Slavery became an issue in the economic struggle between
southern plantation owners and northern industrialists in the first half of
the 19th century, a struggle that culminated in the American Civil War.

At the centre of the slavery debate was the question of allowing slavery in
new territories. So explosive was this issue that a gag rule, automatically
tabling antislavery petitions and discussion, existed in Congress until the
mid 1840s. Kansas, for example, became the scene of bloody conflict between
pro- and anti-slavery groups, a period known as ‘Bleeding Kansas’
(1854?61). The Wilmot Proviso (1846), a proposal to prohibit slavery in any
territory acquired from Mexico after its defeat in the Mexican?American
War, also helped to increase regional tensions. The major compromises, the
Missouri Compromise (1820), the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska
Act (1864), were ultimately unable to prevent the war.

Despite the common perception to the contrary, the Civil War was not fought
primarily on the slavery issue. President Abraham Lincoln, however, saw the
political advantages of promising freedom for southern slaves, and the
Emancipation Proclamation was enacted in 1863. This was reinforced after
the war by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the US
Constitution (1865, 1868, and 1870), which abolished slavery altogether and
guaranteed citizenship and civil rights to former slaves. Apart from the
moral issues surrounding slavery, there has also been a good deal of debate
on the economic efficiency of slavery as a system of production in the USA.
It has been argued that plantation owners might have been better off
employing labour, although the effect of emancipating vast numbers of
slaves could, and did, have enormous political and social repercussions in
the Reconstruction period following the Civil War. Freed slaves were often
resented by poor whites as economic competitors, and vigilante groups such
as the Ku Klux Klan formed to intimidate them. Although outlawed in most
countries, various forms of slavery continue to exist ? as evidenced by the
steps taken by international organizations such as the League of Nations
between the world wars and the United Nations since 1945 to curb such
practices. In February 2001, African-American groups called for reparation
of between US$1 trillion and US$10 trillion from the US government to
compensate descendants of slaves for their ancestors’ unpaid labour and for
other forms of racism. See also United States: history 1783?1861, the
slavery issue; and United States: history 1861?77.

Previous ArticleNext Article