Blog

Did Thompson provide persuasive evidence that South’s slave system was morally evil? First of all Thompson’s full name was John Thompson. He was a slave in Maryland. He was born in 1812. In his family there was him, his mother, father, and six brothers and sisters. He was a slave at a young age and knew what it felt like to be severely punished. He also barely knew his sister because she was sold at a young age.

The time Thompson was  born slavery was very common. Everywhere in North America people were being taken away from their family’s And being beaten to death sometimes for the fun of it. Back to the question. Did Thompson provide persuasive evidence that South’s slave system was morally evil? Yes. He tells about African-Americans getting kidnaped from Africa and being taken to North America. Then getting sold (sometimes not with your family) and being taken to a place where you work all day and get punished. If you don’t know what slavery is according to Google it means “the state of being a slave.” A slave according to Google is “a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.” Americans believed that because African-Americans had a different skin color God cared about them less. Many slaves tried running away because slavery was so evil. Few succeeded because a price was put on them. The ones who succeeded couldn’t do much with their live anywhere close to where they were slaves because they would be known. If you want to hear more about Thompson’s you can read my paper “What was Thompson’s theory of the relationship between sanctions and slavery?” Or you can read his autobiography. 

What was Thompson’s theory of the relationship between sanctions and slavery? Thompson’s first name was john so his full name was John Thompson. He was born at a plantation in Maryland in 1812. There he grew up with his family. His mother, father, and six brothers and sisters. At a young age he was a slave and his sister was sold never to be seen again. Soon he was sold, but he still met his family. 

Slavery was very wrong. It’s okay to work for someone, but the way that people did it back then was wrong. people were forced to work for others without getting paid and being treated very wrong. According to google a slave is “a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.” Slaves back then were African-American’s. White men kidnapped them from Africa for many reasons. Back then white men were probably lazy or they just thought that God cared less about them because their skin color was different. They were wrong because God cares and wants us to care about everybody equally. In John 15:12 Jesus said “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” Jesus loves everyone the same and so He wants us to love everyone the same just as He does. This is Acts 17:25-28, “²⁵ And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. ²⁶ From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ²⁷ God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ²⁸ ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.” People thought African-American’s were animals, but they are peaceful people. It is good that people finally learned that everyone is equal. 

According to google “A sanction is a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule.” Back then whites forced African-Americans To work for them like saying “If you don’t chop down thirty trees an hour I’ll slash you with a whip with as many trees as you don’t cut down.” And sometimes they just whipped them for the fun of it. That was their system. Do this or your whipped.

Now that you know what slavery and sanction are back to the question, What was Thompson’s theory of the relationship between sanctions and slavery? I believe that he was negative about both of them. I am too and so is everyone else I know. Please agree with me.

What would I do in my autobiography that is different from what Darwin did. His full name is really  Charles Robert Darwin. You may already know who he is because he is so famous. He was an “English naturalist, geologist and biologist best known for his contributions to the science of evolution.” He wrote many books throughout his life. Two of them were his autobiography and a book called  “The Origin of Species.” It was placed in the theory of evolution. Darwin’s point of view was evolution And some people believe in it, but other people know that it’s a lie. We cannot change Darwin now. “Darwin has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history, and he was honored by burial in Westminster Abbey.” Westminster Abbey is a Famous church for many reasons. One of them was that it was the chosen location for seventeen royal weddings. That means that he must have been really famous. Also he won a lot of awards. Some of those awards were the FRS, Royal Medal, Wollaston Medal, Copley Medal, Doctor of Laws and Cambridge. Can you imaging having those awards and more? His wife was Emma Wedgwood and they had ten children. Imagine right now that you had ten children. Your house would probably be a mess. I know a family that has eight children, but yet that is not ten. He was diagnosed in 1882 with what was called “angina pectoris”. That then meant coronary thrombosis and disease of the heart. Around the time of his death the physicians diagnosed “anginal attacks”, and “heart-failure”. It could have very well been that Darwin may have suffered from chronic Chagas disease. His autobiography is well known and it sold out very quickly because Darwin is a very well known person. 

Now bake to the question, what would I do in my autobiography that is different from what Darwin did? Well first of all I would make my autobiography longer than Darwin’s. He also talks about his job a lot and not nearly as much about his family. I would write more about more about my family. You may have more reasons, but I do not.

Should I include reconstructed speeches in my autobiography? In any case I am first going to say what reconstructed speeches are. A reconstructed speech is a speech or conversation or anything that you can not quite remember but you have to piece it back together. Most of the time you will not get it fully right. What I do in this case is I try to remember the important and interesting parts about the story. If you forget an important part and want or need to write it down you can ask someone else that was at the speech and ask them about it. If there is a problem in which you cannot get in touch with someone that was there you can try to remember what was happening and write it down if you are writing down. An important time to take notes is when somebody is giving you important advice for your future. Taking notes is important when somebody is talking about how to help your future because they could be helpful in your future. it is much easier than trying to remember.

 Well anyway let me answer the question. Should I include reconstructed speeches in my autobiography? And the answer is that depends. Surprised? That depends is the answer because if you remember a speech or conversation that you want to include And you get everything correct or close you will not need reconstruction on that topic. But if you forget something interesting or important in your life that you want to include in your autobiography you are going to have to include some reconstruction to fill in the parts that you forgot about. That is one reason why you should keep a diary or journal. It will help you remember parts in your life that you may have forgotten. The more stuff you put in your journal the less you have to remember. If you put interesting stuff in your autobiography people who read it would probably want to share it. When I write my autobiography (if I ever do) it would be a lot of fun. I would have a blast writing my autobiography and looking back at my life before I would write it. It would be fun because I could look back at funny parts of my life. So remember, if you journal you can prevent reconstruction in your autobiography.