James Henry Hammond's Arguments Leading To The Civil War

744 Words3 Pages

For many years leading to the Civil War slavery has been an ongoing argument between the North and the South. Both regions have their own arguments for either side of their cases. The North was strongly against the idea of enslaving human beings while the South saw the advantages of owning slaves. James Henry Hammond demonstrates that slaves are less beneficial to the economy because they cost more than free labor, although he does contradict himself, Hinton Rowan continues to explain the North demand for southern merchandise. James Henry Hammond portrays his economic views on slavery by claiming that slaves cost, in all, more than free labor workers. In his claim he states that slaves are not entirely free, as in cost, because in order to own a slave you must buy him or her from a slave trader or earlier on in a scrambler; furthermore, you must be …show more content…

Hammond to sum up his article states that “the question is, whether free or slave labor is the cheapest to us in this country . . . we cannot avail ourselves of any other than slave labor”. After arguing that the economy would advance from getting rid of owning slaves Hammond then ends his argument with a wishy washy statement saying that the United States might not even be ready to only have free labor. He continues to go on by saying “we must therefore, content ourselves with our dear labor”, implying that although he thinks they could benefit he all together has given in to owning them. He contradicts his economic advantages and the idea of banning slavery making his statement poor and counterproductive to persuade the South into letting their slaves free. Hammond’s contradicting ideas are further proven by Hinton Rowan as he continues the idea of the North depending on the South and their slave owning

Open Document