The “Southern Apologia” for Slavery in the Market Revolution (1830-

1850)
Directions: Please answer the questions that follow the primary source excerpts below. In some cases
we will be looking at questions that compare the primary sources together; in other cases we will look at
them on their own.

Context: The term “apology” is often used in as a means of expressing regret or sorrow for a behavior.
However, the Greek word “apologia” (from which the English term is derived) is defined as “in defense
of an opinion, position, or action”. When used the philosophical context “apology” takes on a different
meaning.

The Market Revolution was a symbiotic relationship between the industrial North and the agricultural
South. As textile mills opened all throughout the North, the demand for Southern cotton (coupled with
Europe’s high demand for its own textile mills) gave the slave owning planter class in the deep South
greater wealth, social status, and political prominence. As the nation rapidly expanded westward in the
1830s, new Southern states such as Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas became the most desired real
estate in the nation due to the fertile soil, a climate that extended the growing/harvest season, and
millions of acres of open land that coincided with the federal government’s policy of Native American
removal. With this geographic expansion and skyrocketing demand for cotton, the institution of race-
based chattel slavery increased to levels inconceivable to previous American generations.

It was also during this time that some of the first voices were raised in staunch, uncompromising moral
opposition to the institution of slavery as the nation examined its metaphorical conscience during the
period of the 2nd Great Awakening. Slavery’s role in this period of economic boom was no secret, nor
was its cruelty nor degradation of people it was forced upon, and petitions for the immediate abolition
of slavery from Northern “abolitionists” began to pour into both Congress and Southern legislatures to
be read aloud to their memberships. For the first time in the nation’s history, Southern intellectuals,
capitalists, and politicians felt the need to organize a rhetorical “defense” of what became known as
“the peculiar institution.” Over the next two decades (1830-1850), an ideology became tied with
identity: to be a Southerner of good social standing was to be an “apologist” for slavery.

Context Questions:
1. When being used in a philosophical context, what does the word “apology” mean?

2. From what you read, how did the market revolution lead to a previously-thought
“inconceivable” increase in slavery, particularly in the South?

3. For what reasons did Northern “abolitionists” begin to speak out against slavery? What was
their primary means for doing so? What was the reaction from Southern intellectuals,
capitalists, and politicians?
Directions: Below are two early examples of Southern voices that lent their support and attempted to
explain why and how an obviously cruel institution was a “positive” for the South in particular and the
nation at large.

Excerpt 1:
“Slavery is not a national evil; on the contrary, it is a national benefit. The agricultural wealth of the
country is found in those states owning slaves, and a great portion of the revenue of the government
is derived from the products of slave labor—Slavery exists in some form everywhere, and it is not of
much consequence in a philosophical point of view, whether it be voluntary or involuntary. In a
political point of view, involuntary slavery had the advantage, since all who enjoy political liberty are
then, in fact, free.”
-Source: Stephen D. Miller (52nd Governor of South Carolina, 1828-1830), Speech to South Carolina State
Legislators, 1829

Excerpt 2:
“Slavery is said to be an evil… But is no evil. On the contrary, I believe it to be the greatest of all the
great blessings which a kind Providence has bestowed upon our glorious region… As a class, I say it
boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth… Lightly tasked, well
clothed, well fed—far better than the free laborers of any country in the world,… their lives and
persons protected by the law, all their sufferings alleviated by the kindest and most interested care....

“Sirs, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery regulated as ours is produces the highest toned, the
purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth.”
-Source: Rep. James Henry Hammond (SC – 4th District), Speech to the US House of Representative
Regarding the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia, February 1836

Analysis Questions (just for Excerpts 1 and 2):

1. According to the source material what position in Southern society do these speakers hold?

2. Compare the two sources together. What distinct similarities do you notice between them?
(look at the language, ideas, etc.)

3. Do you see any distinct differences between the two? Subtle differences? Explain.
Directions: This third excerpt is a bit longer but the voice speaking it is one of the most well-known
political figures in the US during this time (having held the offices of US Representative, Secretary of
War, US Senator, and Vice President of the United States in his political career). Read over his
statement and please answer the questions that follow.

Excerpt 3:
“Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day,
attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually…
[they] came to us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few generations
[they have] grown up under the fostering care of our institutions.

“I hold that, in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished
by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now
existing in the slaveholding states between the two is, instead of an evil, a good — a positive good. I
feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject, where the honor and interests of those I
represent are involved.

“I may say with truth, that in our country as compared to others, so much is left to the share of the
laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness
or infirmities of age. Compare the slave’s condition with the tenants of the poor houses in Europe–
look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends,
under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress and compare it with the forlorn and
wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse.

“I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of
the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this
assertion, it is fully borne out by history. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth
and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us
from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the
political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the
North.”
-Source: Senator John C. Calhoun (SC), Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions, Delivered in the
Senate, February 6th, 1837

Analysis Questions:
1. Where is the setting of this speech? Why might that matter?

2. Summarize what Calhoun is saying in the first paragraph. What main points is he making about
the condition of enslaved Black Americans? Who is Calhoun saying is responsible for helping
them attain this condition?
 3. What choice of words does Calhoun use to describe the relationship between free and enslaved
people in the South at this time (instead of “an evil”). How does he justify this choice of words
in the third paragraph?

4. How is Calhoun using history to defend his main points?

5. Why might Calhoun believe that the condition of Southern society is “exempts them” from the
conflict that results between “labor and capital” (essentially: the working class and the “owning
class”)? You’re going to have to think outside the box here but see what you can come up with.

Comparison & Reflection Questions:

1. Compare Calhoun’s statement with that of Miller’s and Hammond’s (Excerpts 1 & 2). Besides
the overall length of the excerpt, what distinct similarities do you notice between his words and
theirs? Any distinct differences?

2. History textbook editors often use Calhoun’s “positive good” metaphor or quote the speech
which it came from at length. Why do you think his apology for slavery gets so much historical
attention? Would either of the first two excerpts be better? Please explain.

Directions: The fourth and final excerpt was published almost 20 years after the first defensive
statements on behalf of slavery appeared in the public discussion. Please read it over and answer the
questions that follow.
 “We deny that slavery is sinful or inexpedient. We deny that it is wrong in the abstract. We assert that
it is the natural condition of man; that there ever has been, and there ever will be slavery; and we not
only claim for ourselves the right to determine for ourselves the relations between master and slave,
but we insist that the slavery of the Southern States is the best regulation of slavery, whether we take
into consideration the interests of the master or of the slave, that has ever been devised.”
-Source: Thomas R. Dew (13th President at the College of William and Mary), The Pro-Slavery Argument:
As Maintained by the most Distinguished Writers of the Southern States, 1852

Analysis Questions:
1. According to the source material, what position does this speaker hold? Why might that
matter?

2. In what ways does this statement represent a “summation” of the ideas and ideology of the
slavery apologia that preceded it? What evidence can you cite? (it doesn’t have to be direct:
indirect references or allusions can work as well).

3. How would you describe the tone of this statement? What makes it different from that of the
first three excerpts?

Summary Question:
In a brief paragraph (4-5 sentences) discuss what you “now know” about how Southern Americans
“defended” the institution of slavery against its critics. Be specific in your answer (like actually use
evidence from one or more of the sources!!)