Slavery was the main provoking factor that sparked the Civil War in the United States. This is because there was a clear distinction between Northern abolitionists and Southern people who relied heavily on slavery because they were needed for their agriculture-based economy. This problem intensified when the cotton gin was invented because slaves were needed to operate the machines to produce/clean the cotton. Only a small percentage of the Southern population actually owned slaves. This is because they were so expensive to purchase, but they were profitable, as planters made about 10% profit from slaves each year. Even people in the South who didn't own slaves benefited, as it helped their overall economy, thus supporting slavery. In an attempt to convince the opposing side that their view on slavery was more necessary or morally correct, many authors wrote essays on slavery and their opinion on the issue. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Several authors have argued that slavery was a positive institution. One of these authors was John C. Calhoun. In Document A, his key argument in defense of slavery was that it was, without question, necessary to the Southern economy, and he argued that “the political condition of the slave-holding states has been much more stable and tranquil than that of the slave states." the North” (Calhoun). His argument has some merit because the South relied heavily on agriculture and to profit from their plantations, planters needed slaves to do the hard work of planting, tending, harvesting, and cleaning cotton and other crops. However, I believe that in the long run the South would have been better off without slavery, because in many ways slavery was holding the South back, as were its industries. There was only 10% of American industry in the South, compared to 90% in the North. In order for the South to progress, it was necessary to know and use the industries more. Another author who believed slavery was beneficial was George Fitzhugh. George viewed slavery as favorable to the working poor and thought that slavery helped them by giving them a home, food, and clothing. He argued that the free worker had a lower social status than slaves. Because he thought that free workers sometimes did not have a home or a stable job. Fitzhugh also states that crime statistics were higher for the population of free workers compared to slaves. I don't think there is any merit to this argument because slaves were treated extremely poorly, with minimal consideration for their safety, health, and well-being. They lived in very poor conditions, some living outside with very little clothing or food to survive. It was also out of fear of being shot and killed that they usually did not commit many crimes, not that they had any greater moral superiority. On the other hand, there were numerous authors who opposed slavery and wanted to eradicate it from the nation. One of these authors was Theodore D. Weld, whose position was radical, he was vehemently against slavery of any kind. He believed that slavery was absolutely scandalous, as he states in Document C: “The slaves in the United States are treated with barbarous inhumanity” (Weld). His position was radical because he did not want to use militant force to abolish slavery, instead he wanted to gather eyewitness statements and facts to present in testimony. The collection of all this evidence would certainly have contributed to putting an end to theslavery. It would provide the frightening facts about slave conditions needed to demonstrate how wrong and sinful slavery was, as well as the fact that it was unconstitutional because slaves had few to no rights. Another abolitionist author was James G. Birney. He believed that slavery was unjust in the eyes of God and that men had no right to carry out slavery, as he thought it was as serious as murder. Birney's position on slavery was radical because he forcefully states his very significant thoughts on slavery, does not believe slavery is right in any way, and thinks it should be ended immediately. His words were certainly helpful in ending slavery because they helped people who had not seen slavery firsthand to be able to connect it to something that everyone knew and agreed was very wrong (murder, incest, adultery, and blasphemy). He also reminded Christians that God would not approve of slavery. Another author who absolutely despised slavery was William Lloyd Garrison, who was a radical abolitionist and his stance on the subject was almost militant. He called for an end to slavery and stated forcefully in Document G, “On this subject, I do not wish to think, speak, or write in moderation” (Garrison). Instead, he was determined to free every slave and was not afraid to make slave owners and all who were not against slavery suffer. Garrison's strong words and determined actions certainly contributed to the end of slavery. This is because, as he clearly expressed in his writings, he would firmly oppose slavery, use any force necessary to abolish it, and would not give up easily. The Declaration of the American Anti-Slavery Society was a group of abolitionists who were strongly against slavery and believed that people of color should have the same rights as any white American. Their position was radical because they spoke out openly against slavery, wanted to stop the institution, and believed that black Americans should have the same rights and privileges as any other Americans. I think groups like this would have had more of an effect when trying to stop slavery because the government is more likely to listen to a group of people than just one person, and as a group they could do more to try to stop slavery and save the slaves than a single person. Henry David Thoreau was another radical abolitionist, who believed that slavery was absolutely shameful and immoral. He explained that if the government tolerated slavery, then he would not obey the government. He believed that if he obeyed unjust laws that required him to go against his conscience, to obey the government, then he would indirectly support slavery. Therefore, he said that if a law is unjust or causes a man to go against his moral beliefs, then he should break the law. His position was radical because he was willing to break the law to end slavery. His actions and words would further help people (especially in the North) understand how wrong and immoral it was and, therefore, influenced more people to try to stop the spread of slavery. However, no one person could end slavery alone, but radical abolitionists greatly influenced people's views on slavery and prevented its spread. It was evident through the writings of David Walker, such as “A Four-Article Appeal with Preamble to the Colored Citizens of the World,” that he too was deeply opposed to slavery. His position was radical because of the force with which he spoke out against it.