The Justification Of Violence In The Narrative By William Allan

One example I found interesting was the justification of violence in the narrative by William Allan. In his testimony, nearly every act of violence committed against slaves was justified. The slave owners were not held accountable, and their actions were justified by the people in charge. Additionally, many people responsible for these acts of violence held positions of power, which explains why it was so often excused. This was interesting to me because it was a blatant illustration of the backward mindset of slave owners. They were very eager to justify themselves and their actions by any means necessary, and since many held positions of power, it was easy for them to get away with such deplorable acts. Another thing I found interesting was

It contradicted the idea that slaves were happy with their lives, and the slave’s decision to jump conveyed how terribly slaves must have been treated, especially in the deep south. A third example I found both interesting and sad was the extent of the cruelty inflicted on slaves by slave owners. In many of the examples, slave owners seemed to enjoy punishing their slaves, whether the slave had done something they considered bad or not. For example, one presumed overseer referred to as Old Major Billy Watkins in the narrative by William Allan seemed to enjoy the suffering of his slaves. He would watch the slaves work in the field, and if any of them straightened their backs for even a second, he would yell at them to keep their backs bent. Clearly, he took pleasure in watching the slaves suffer for the sake of it, which is a grim indication of how slaves were typically treated. I believe Southerners were probably outraged when they read testimonies such as these. The stories and experiences depicted in these narratives paint Southerners in a negative light. Southerners were often unchallenged and felt righteous in their actions, so they did not respond well to being called

For any topic, it is important to gather a variety of perspectives, and narratives such as these should not be silenced simply because they are graphic or provocative. The important takeaway is the truth, and if the truth is graphic and provocative, then naturally, firsthand accounts will be as well. Southerners in favor of slavery were not reliable sources of the truth because they condoned the treatment of slaves and were not victims of the violence themselves. If we relied solely on the testimonies of slave owners, we would understand slaves to be happy under their circumstances, which is grossly inaccurate. For example, the book Aunt Phillis’s Cabin was the Southerners’ response to Uncle Tom’s Cabin, an anti-slavery novel. In Aunt Phillis’s Cabin, slave owners are depicted as respectable individuals, and slaves are depicted as happy to serve their slave owners. In other words, according to Southerners, slavery is a positive system where slaves are happy and everyone thrives. These narratives address a different perspective that is less biased, and they should not be banned just because they oppose the ideas of