- From the positive side to debaters
Tannenbaum and carl`s arguments
As Frank explains the experience that the slaves went through, he clearly shows how the British were taking advantage of the Negro slaves. This is so because, the British were not ready to grant the slaves an opportunity to preach the gospel amongst themselves, but put them in the first line to participate in wars whenever it arises. This indicates how more cruel they were since they did not want the slaves to come into self-realization and obtain their freedom but rather stay in slavery. This can be seconded from the fact that, as the British forbidden the slaves to marry, they were being denied a right to raise a family of their own. And for those who were lucky to have one, they were separated from each other in the account of paying their debt in exchange for a loved one. For this reason, why were the slaves escaping if the law was protecting them?
- From the negative side to debaters
Carl defined the slaves as an important part of the nation irrespective of their status. He points out that, though they were slaves, the law was there to protect their rights. The only thing that rated them differently is the fact that they were graded as possession of their master. This is how similar both Tannenbaum and Carl show that the slaves had no opportunity to decide on their own on what they feel they could engage themselves in without orders. However, for Carl, he points out that their road to freedom was easier since they were under the rules that could grant them access to it. In the same instance, even when they could have the freedom, they were denied certain rights like possessing large pieces of land. Thus, Tannenbaum is in a better position to be credited with a convincing argument that slaves were cruelly handled. The reason being, Carl only suggests the law being the guide and the protector of the slaves against any mishandling. The question that remains is, how did the Christian church positively impact the slaves?