Slavery: James McPherson interpretation in Ordeal by Fire (Essay Sample)

Slavery
Student’s name:
Professor’s name:
Course number:
Date:
Slavery has been defined as the process through which one acquires the rights and freedom of a fellow man and hence regards him as property (Slavery in the United States, 2016). Authors, Stanley Elkins, and James McPherson are descriptive in their books. They both try to explain the social and spiritual lives that these slaves had. Both of them do not support slavery nor do they support the treatments of the slaves as lesser beings. Stanley Elkin is particularly vocal about his take on the mistreatment of the American slaves compared to the Brazilian slaves. He even compares the recent slavery to the medieval slavery. James McPherson, on the other hand, tends to focus more on the transition of the American history. What events led to this transition, the conflicts, and the effect this had on the American slaves.
According to Stanley Elkins, slaves in the United States were deprived of their full rights. They had no right to own families;no right to engage in any activities that the master does not approve of and even yet, was subject to mistreatment and harassment by their masters. These masters could sell their wives and children as they please. Families were broken during this time and since the slave could not trace where they have gone to, they had to stick with their masters. This is unlike the Brazilian slavery. These slaves were recognized as human beings. They had their own rights and were included as part of their masters’ families. These masters had no right to sell the families of the slaves since they recognized and also supported the value of the families. The Brazilian master showed love and affection to his slave. Unlike in the United States, the slaves always worked against their will. They were thoroughly thrashed by their masters and given poor living conditions like sheds with little food to cater for the high number of slaves that one has. These slaves were also subject to sexual mistreatment from their masters and hence, the relationship between the master and the slave was strained. Brazilian slaves were even allowed to perform some actions like free men. For instance, working so as to earn their freedom, be legally married; be baptized so as to become a member of the Catholic Church. The institution of family and culture did not die among the Brazilian slaves. This was based in the institutional differences that Stanley argued. The slave master in Brazil was restricted to the traditional institution. So, after the long path to freedom, given the fact that these slaves could actually buy their freedom and their families remained intact, they had some space to reconstruct some of the African cultures in Brazil. This was unlike in the United States. These slaves were stripped off of their identity as Africans. Their masters looked down upon the African culture and deemed it as immoral or inferior. The result of this was that the African slave never got the chance to exercise his African culture (Elkins, 1959). The mistreatment and harassment from their masters made the slaves think of something else rather than their culture. The fact that they could not even buy their own freedom made them devalue themselves as mere property to be owned. The American law even then proved it hard for any white man to grant the slave the rights of a free man. There were many hindrances in the American system and hence that even made the masters decide not to grant the wishes of the slaves freedom because of the strenuous and hard legal processes that meant to discourage them from doing that (Elkins, 1959).
According to Stanley, the church in Brazil championed for the right of the slaves. These rights included the protection of the slaves and converting them to Christianity so as to save their souls. The American slaves only knew about Christianity so as to keep them docile and not hostile. The thought of religion being used to ‘contain’ the slaves is perhaps the most shameful part in American history according to Stanley Elkins (Elkins, 1959).
The Brazilian government made it clear that the slave was a human being. Given the fact that a child of a slave could purchase his freedom by simply being baptized, they recognized the slave is a man and only differed in degree and not kind from his master. This is unlike the American government. They simply viewed the slave as mere property to the extent of even breaking up the slaves’ families so as to attain more profit. Children and their mothers were separated, husbands from their wives. There was no regard for the right of the slaves at all(McQueen, 2013).
James McPherson tried to explain slavery during the time of the antebellum slavery. He shows the events that led to the onset of the American civil war that was between the Northerners and the Southerners. He begins by describing the American modernization period between 1800 and 1860. The North had modernized greatly while the South was not. The North believed in voluntary associations and reform movements. This period saw the economy greatly improve. There were constructions of better road networks, the railway line, improved transportation and increased food production in the country. Education was introduced in the country and thus the onset of sciences and mathematics into the country. Slaves enabled helped themselves to read and thus became literate. The Northerners embraced education while the Southerners remained rooted to their traditional ways of life. The issue of women rights came into question with the onset of the education. Whereas they may not have been deemed as equal citizens compared to the men, they benefitted greatly from increased opportunities and some even managed to get jobs through education. This was despite the ridicule and opposition that they faced from the men (McPherson &Hogue, 2010).
The Antebellum south became more increasingly alarmed at the progress the North was making. The North championed for abolition of slavery so as to give the slaves the rights of free men. The North had some ideas that the South deemed as impossible. For example, free labor capitalism was something the South could not easily give away. The South believed in tradition and stability. They had the mindset that a slave was simply a slave, not a man. Slavery and freedom were completely contrasting issues and they could not simply give that away. Furthermore, the South had a great demand for cotton. They supplied approximately four fifth of the cotton form the United States. Thus, labor was highly needed and the idea of abolishing slavery was simply not welcome. The South had trade links with Europe and therefore a great demand of cotton was available. Given the fact that the South had no modernized means of planting and harvesting cotton, they were completely dependent on the slaves for the cotton plantations to flourish. The North were also dependent on the South’s cotton for their textile factories. These cotton plantations were profitable to the extent that the South economy grew. However, the region did not develop as anticipated due to the high illiteracy levels in the region. The South did not have a diversified economy since they did not inclu...