EOTO Reflection - The Positives and Negatives of Slavery

The Positives and Negatives of Slavery

During the EOTO presentations, both the positives and negatives of slavery were discussed to further reinforce the mock trial done in class. Many different events were discussed that led to positive effects regarding the abolition of slavery, as well as negative effects, more specifically, the events and time periods that caused damage to society or certain people groups.

Above is an illustration of the Missouri Compromise.

To start with the positives, we can look at just one of the many examples given: The Missouri Compromise of 1820. Before this compromise, there were 11 free states and 11 slave states, and Missouri wanted to become a slave state. To maintain the balance, but also keep everyone happy, Henry Clay helped create a compromise between Missouri and the rest of the states. Maine was admitted as a free state, so there would still be an even number of slave and free states. It also drew a sort of proper "line" between the free and slave states. This balance remained very important as it helped keep people from fighting over beliefs and created a sort of mutual respect in society at the time. This is further reinforced by the 30-years of Sectional Peace, which was a 30-year lapse of time in which there was "sectional peace" or simply no conflict between states. 

This time of peace sadly came to an end in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed slavery north of Missouri's southern border. Furthermore, in 1857, the Dred Scott decision ruled the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and also ruled that African Americans could never become official citizens of the U.S. The collapse of the Missouri Compromise, which was one of the only things preventing a civil war between the northern and southern states, led directly to the Civil War in 1861. It also pushed the U.S. to consider new solutions to fix the issue of division rooted in differences in opinion on whether slavery is beneficial or not.

Above is a photo of John Brown.

Now, we need to look at the negatives. A good example to look at would be the legacy of John Brown. He was born in Connecticut and grew up in a strictly religious home. He grew up with the belief that slavery was morally evil and that action needed to be taken. He grew up in North Elba, New York, among black families. In 1855, he began to involve himself in violent conflicts in Kansas, such as the Pottawatomie Killings, which consisted of an anti-slavery party led by John Brown killing 5 people from a pro-slavery settlement. His most infamous event was his raid on Harpers Ferry. They went to the armory to try to steal their weaponry and gain an easy gateway to the south. This did not work out; however, after fighting for two days, Brown and his followers were subdued and later hanged for treason. This is important as it is considered today as one of the main incidents that led to the civil war.

In conclusion, looking at these kinds of things surrounding slavery is very important to see why it was abolished, and all of the events that led up to its abolition. I found it interesting to be able to see both sides at the same time and how they both led to the Civil War.

Wendell Phillips Script

Above is a photo of Wendell Phillips.

Wendell Phillips: Abolitionist Views

Introduction

Good afternoon.

My name is Wendell Phillips, and I stand before you as an abolitionist, an orator, and a man who believes that freedom belongs to every human being.

    Who I Am

I was born into a wealthy family in Boston and educated at Harvard. I could have chosen a comfortable life practicing law and enjoying the privileges that came with my position in society.

Instead, I chose a different path.

As I watched the treatment of enslaved men, women, and children in this country, I came to a simple conclusion: slavery is morally wrong. No person has the right to own another person. Human beings are not property. They are entitled to liberty, dignity, and the opportunity to live as free citizens.

My Feelings on Slavery

This is a stock image with someone breaking chains from
between their wrists.

Many people told me that speaking against slavery was dangerous. They warned me that I would lose friends, social standing, and political opportunities.

They were correct.

But there are moments when silence becomes its own form of injustice.

I could not remain silent while millions of people were denied their freedom. Slavery was not simply a political issue to me. It was a moral evil that violated the principles of justice and humanity.

Why I Became an Abolitionist

One event that strengthened my resolve was the murder of abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy in 1837. His death showed me how fiercely supporters of slavery would defend an unjust system.

It also convinced me that people of conscience had a duty to speak even louder.

That same year, after delivering a speech in Boston condemning the violence against Lovejoy, I became one of the leading voices of the abolitionist movement. 

My Mission

Throughout my life, I traveled and delivered speeches across the nation because I believed public opinion could change the course of history.

Wendell Phillips speaks to the public.

I challenged Americans to look beyond politics and economics and focus on a simple question:

Is slavery right or wrong?

To me, the answer was obvious.

America spoke of liberty while millions remained in bondage. That contradiction could not continue forever. Every day slavery existed was another day of stolen freedom, broken families, and unnecessary suffering.

Conclusion

I did not believe justice should be delayed. I argued for immediate emancipation because freedom is a right, not a privilege.

Even after slavery ended, I continued to support equal rights because true freedom means more than the absence of chains. It means equality, opportunity, and justice under the law.

So, I leave you with this thought:

Progress begins when ordinary people refuse to accept injustice as normal.

Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI Disclosure: AI was used very heavily in this assignment, as I researched with AI and had Copilot format it into a three-minute script to read in class. This was done along with the Wendell Phillips blog post, so much of the information here is expanded upon in that post.

The Religious/Moral Defense of John Mann

Understanding the Religious and Moral Defense of Slavery in State v. Mann

The 1829 North Carolina case State v. Mann forced Americans to confront a difficult question: how much power did a slaveholder possess over an enslaved person?

In the case, John Mann had rented an enslaved woman named Lydia. After she attempted to flee punishment, Mann shot and wounded her. The North Carolina Supreme Court ultimately ruled in his favor and reinforced the idea that a slaveholder's authority had to remain virtually absolute. 

To modern readers, that decision is shocking.

But supporters of slavery in the early nineteenth century often relied on religious and moral arguments that they believed justified the institution.

A photo of an open Bible against a dark background

One common argument came from the Bible. Pro-slavery advocates pointed to passages that referred to masters and servants, arguing that Scripture regulated slavery rather than prohibiting it. Many Southern ministers taught that the institution was compatible with Christianity so long as masters fulfilled what they viewed as their obligations to those they enslaved.

Another argument focused on paternalism.

Slaveholders often portrayed themselves as protectors who provided food, shelter, and guidance. They claimed that authority over enslaved people came with responsibility and that discipline was necessary to maintain order. Historians now recognize that this paternalistic language often masked the violence and coercion required to sustain slavery, but it was a powerful part of the pro-slavery worldview.

These ideas appeared alongside legal arguments in State v. Mann.

Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin

Chief Justice Thomas Ruffin acknowledged that slavery presented profound moral difficulties. Yet he concluded that the institution could not function unless masters retained what he described as absolute power over enslaved people. In his view, limiting that authority would threaten the entire system of slavery. 

The case, therefore, reveals an important historical reality. Defenders of slavery rarely relied on economics alone. They also used religious reasoning, moral language, and claims about social order to justify the institution. These arguments helped sustain slavery in the minds of many Americans before the Civil War.

Today, historians study State v. Mann not because its reasoning was correct, but because it demonstrates how law, religion, and ideas about morality were used to support slavery in the United States.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AI DISCLAIMER: AI was used heavily in this assignment, as when I prompted the script for the Mock Trial, I also had Microsoft Copilot format the research it did into a professionally written blog post detailing the things mentioned in the script and expanding upon them properly.

Wendell Phillips (Town Hall Speech Blog Post)

Wendell Phillips

Wendell Phillips: A 

Powerful Voice Against 

Slavery

During the years before the Civil War, many Americans recognized the injustice of slavery but remained silent. Wendell Phillips chose a different path.

Born into a wealthy and influential Boston family in 1811, Phillips had access to education, social status, and professional opportunities. He graduated from Harvard Law School and appeared prepared for a successful legal career. However, he eventually left the practice of law and devoted himself to the abolitionist movement.

His decision came with serious consequences. Speaking against slavery could damage a person’s reputation, career, and personal relationships. Phillips nevertheless believed that opposing injustice was more important than protecting his privileged position.

William Lloyd Garrison

A Turning Point

Phillips became increasingly committed to abolition after witnessing hostility toward antislavery activists. In 1835, he observed a Boston mob attack abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. The mob included respectable and influential citizens, which demonstrated that support for slavery was not limited to the South. 

Another defining event occurred in 1837, when abolitionist newspaper editor Elijah Lovejoy was murdered by a proslavery mob in Illinois. Later that year, Phillips spoke at a protest meeting in Boston’s Faneuil Hall. His passionate defense of Lovejoy and condemnation of mob violence established him as one of the abolitionist movement’s leading speakers. 

Slavery as a Moral Wrong

Phillips viewed slavery as a direct violation of human freedom and dignity. He rejected the idea that one person could rightfully own another human being.

For Phillips, slavery was not simply a political disagreement or an economic issue. It was a moral crisis that demanded an immediate response. The rights of enslaved people could not be postponed to protect political unity, financial interests, or social comfort.

Phillips therefore supported immediate emancipation rather than a slow or gradual end to slavery. Delaying abolition meant allowing enslaved people to continue suffering under a system that denied their most basic rights.

He also shared William Lloyd Garrison’s belief that the Constitution protected slavery through political compromises. Phillips was willing to consider the dissolution of the Union rather than continue cooperating with slaveholding states. This position made him more radical than many other antislavery Americans. 

The Power of Public Speaking

Public speaking became Phillips’s most important weapon against slavery. His education had prepared him to speak clearly and persuasively, and his speeches challenged audiences to confront the gap between American ideals and American reality.

Wendell Phillips speaks to the public.

The United States celebrated liberty while allowing millions of people to remain enslaved. Phillips used that contradiction to force listeners to consider whether the country truly practiced the principles it claimed to represent.

His calm delivery, strong voice, and use of dramatic comparisons helped make him one of the abolitionist movement’s most compelling speakers. 

A Broader Commitment to Equality

Phillips’s activism continued after slavery ended. He supported full civil rights for formerly enslaved people and became president of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1865. He also advocated for women’s rights, universal suffrage, and other reform movements. 

His life demonstrated that freedom required more than the removal of physical chains. It also required equal rights, legal protection, and meaningful participation in American society.

Today, Phillips is remembered as a reformer who sacrificed comfort and status to challenge injustice. His example shows how courage, conviction, and persuasive speech can move people to confront the failures of their society.

The American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 AI DISCLOSURE: AI was used heavily in the creation of this blog post. As I fed a carefully crafted prompt to Microsoft Copilot, and after editing the prompt to provide better context, and re-generating the post a few times, it gave me a well-crafted blog post, to which I added images and hyperlinks to certain webpages, some of which Copilot gave me.

The Eight Values Of Expression

Here, multiple people hold up signs with the First Amendment freedoms.

The Eight Values of Free Expression

The eight values of expression are extremely important in both the functioning of the government via regulation and the fairness and rights of the individual, specifically in their expression of what they believe is right. It simply gives more detail and strengthens the First Amendment by detailing eight new freedoms theorized by eight different people that cover things ranging from protecting the dissent of citizens to protecting innovation and creativity. This is all done in an attempt to create a better society and government by prioritizing civilians' rights to criticize, express themselves, and believe whatever they want. 

Here, hands hold up devices of expression with text.

All of these values are key in the functioning of society, but they each carry a specific meaning that needs to be made apparent to fully understand how they affect the government and us as civilians, and how they work together. One very important value that I believe is crucial to me is Individual Self-Fulfillment, which is the belief that these freedoms, like speech and expression, allow individuals to create their own identities, which, in my opinion, is one of the most crucial parts of any society. I attributed this to me specifically, as I believe that everyone, to a certain extent, should be able to express themselves how they want and believe what they want to believe. Not expressing this belief in a society just leads to arguments and overall negativity.

Even though Individual Self-Fulfillment is very important, the most important value, and the one that we need to keep in action today as much as possible, is Check on Government Power. This belief builds on the First Amendment right of free press, by allowing us citizens to voice concerns and spread awareness to others about devious or wrong actions taking place within the government. This is necessary because, if the government had complete control over all of their decisions in the sense that they censored the general public voicing concerns, it would cause a sense of autonomy where citizens just couldn't do anything about it, like they can now when they vote. 

This can be seen today through all of the strange new renaming of places, and the president's addiction to striking down Iran. Of course, most of the general public dislikes this, so it's beneficial that they have the power to speak this way about it and then be able to reflect these ideals through their vote.

An example of a peaceful protest.

Another very crucial value is the idea of Stable Change, which, similar to the other values, gives civilians the ability to voice anger and what's on their mind surrounding governmental happenings. It goes on to explain that this helps civilians not use crime or any other forms of aggression as an outlet for their anger, but allows them to "vent" instead. This can be seen through things like peaceful protests. 

This also helps the government, as the definition also mentions that it allows them to see ideologies or groups that could prove to be potentially threatening or aggressive. This idea also helps society in major ways, as almost anyone who is angry and is allowed a chance to vent usually "cools down" fairly quickly.

One other value that we see a lot in today's society is the idea of promoting tolerance. This is the idea that hate speech, to an extent, must be tolerated in a society to make it more tolerant in other places. It has to be allowed so society can see why the speech is considered hate speech and figure out the complaints in society. This can be seen today a lot through social media, as platforms like X (formerly Twitter) have seemingly supported the idea, as they don't really regulate the platform very much, so all kinds of things are said by all kinds of different people. 

In conclusion, all of these values are very important and need to be utilized to properly exercise our First Amendment rights. The ability to express political opinions to others, so you will be able to properly know what you are voting for, the ability to express yourself and hold any belief you want to hold, and many more are all crucial points that are easy to see being used daily in society. This expansion of our rights as U.S citizens is one of, if not the most important aspect of our overall freedom and expression.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bible Team Challenge

Bible Team Challenge

 Through the history and documentation of many religions, we can see that their views on slavery differ and also fluctuate throughout time. The question here, however, is what differences and arguments are there throughout all these religions in the aspect of pro versus anti-slavery. This question is rich with answers on both sides across numerous religions.

 Arguments Against Slavery

For most of the Old Testament, the Bible doesn’t exactly say that slavery is right, but it acknowledges that it was a sort of “Social Construct” at the time that was widely used and accepted. Specific religions, like Judaism, for a time in its early days, condoned slavery as a normal practice, especially the enslavement of non-Israelites. However, as time went on, they started to outlaw certain forms of slavery that they deemed were against Judaist or Christian beliefs. After more time passed, they eventually put the illegalization of slavery into full effect with little to no exceptions. So the argument here would be that at the start, most religions were all for slavery, until they realized it went against exactly what they preached, so they decided to crack down on it. One big part of the Bible that details this is the book of Exodus, especially verse 21:2. This verse details one of the laws put into place about servitude, that you can have someone serve you for six years, but on the seventh, they MUST let you go free. This is mostly because in Judaism, “slavery” leaned more towards indentured servitude, meaning they would go free after serving a certain stretch of time. 

 

One other place in the Bible is Galatians 5:1, which helps reinforce how slavery was a lot less harsh and less practiced than it was in the Old Testament. The verse says, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1 NIV). This is showing the belief that no man should ever have to serve permanently or, more specifically, from birth or a very young age, until death, whether that be from old age or from being worked to death. So in biblical times, slavery was never fully illegal per se; however, especially in the New Testament, it mentions that it was very inhumane and was greatly affected by these new rules, making it a lot better. While, of course, slavery was never intrinsically good, this new form of servitude did serve as a big argument against harsh slavery. This was also reflected in more modern times during the abolition of slavery, when the government had to make a number of exceptions to get people to finally agree with the new laws, even if that meant still leaving a major amount of injustice in society.

 

Microsoft Word - FINAL JOURNAL Papers On Slavery Human Dignity AI Silence of God Gustavo Gutierresz John Coltrane.bk 

Jewish Concepts: Slavery

 

Arguments For Slavery 

The Bible says that slavery is permitted in the old world. For example, in the old world Moses comes up a bit when discussing this topic. According to Moses's law, Hebrew servants were allowed to work for 6 years to repay any and all of their debts. But they had to be released after their six years were up, no expectations unless they had more debts. There are also quotes from Christianity that support slavery, like Leviticus 25:39–40 says these “slaves” were to be treated as “a hired man, as if he were a sojourner.” Verse 43 says, “You shall not rule over him with severity.” From what I can tell so far, Christianity did not use slavery the same way as people from the 1800s; instead, they almost used it in a nicer way. But speaking about the 1800s, the bible was actually used to fight for pro slavery in that time. 

The Jewish religion says a similar thing about slavery; the religion says that slavery is ok to a certain extent. From what I can tell, it is more seeing people as workers than as slaves, so, like Christianity, they use slavery in a nicer way than the 1800s stereotype we commonly use. In fact, there is even a law in place that prevents them from making people slaves; “no Israelite is permitted to enslave a fellow Israelite who is indigent.” 

In the end, you could say that the two religions I talked about earlier never really enforced slavery. The two religions were more in a weird gray area of sorts, not heavily supporting, but then again, they were not trying to ban or get rid of it by any means. So, when you are comparing the 1800s to the old world, the time when the world was more heavily focused on religion, remember that they are different. Not different in the sense of calling it red vs blue, but more of saying gray vs black, similar in some ways, but at the end not the same.  

 

In conclusion, throughout the timelines of all these religions, views on slavery have fluctuated, and the arguments discussed highlight the specific ways laws and beliefs on slavery have moved through time. These arguments actually slightly surprised me, as I did not realize that slavery was supported in the Bible at the start. I knew it was practiced, but figured that it wasn’t at all supported. It is good to look at these differences, as it can give us insight into how slavery has progressed throughout history and what effect religion had on decisions later down the line. 

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/does-the-bible-support-slavery 
https://www.str.org/w/is-the-bible-pro-slavery 

https://www.jtsa.edu/torah/grappling-with-slavery-in-parashat-behar/