One of the most common retorts to the argument that slavery was central to the Southern way of life is to point out that only 1 in 4 white southerners actually owned slaves. The argument suggests that ownership of slaves was a precondition for any decision that involved secession and even a reason to go off to war. Recent studies of Southern society clearly show that the maintenance of the institution of slavery mattered in more ways than simple ownership. It propped up a hierarchical society based on race and provided a means for advancement within society. After all it took only one slave to be considered a "slave owner." I find it difficult to make these points in class in a way that students identify with. Luckily William Blair offers a wonderful analogy in his essay on slavery and secession which recently appeared in the new edited volume Struggle for a Vast Future.
Imagine asking the question to a room full of primarily 18- through 21-year olds, "How many of you are homeowners?" The predictably few hands that go up might provoke the following question: "Then does that mean you are against homeowning?" The absurdity of the question strikes them almost immediately. They understand that they have grown up in a society based on property owning by individuals, with homeowning as a means of measuring success. Although listed on a census as non-homeowners, most have grown up in domiciles owned by parents and, even if they begin their independent adult lives as renters, wish to find property reflective of their social stations as soon as conditions allow. Those who were raised in apartments admit to the power that homeowning holds on the culture. Furthermore, while renters derive no benefit from the tax code that credits expenditures for interest rates on mortgages, few of them storm the tax office and cry for an end to the advantage, even if they grumble on tax deadline day about the lack of similar breaks for themselves. Similar to our ancestors, we can overlook the contradictions within our society. Many of us can walk by the homeless on the street and believe that a character flaw contributes to their condition, rather than challenge the individualism that undergirds our society or question whether we ought to accept the poverty-stricken as unfortunate, if inevitable casualties of a free-market system.
As Blair points out students can see the possibilities of a future war over the rights of homeowning and property, especially if it is couched in a broader ethical/moral language regarding a way of life. Slavery and homeowning both involve the rights of property ownership which makes this such an effective analogy. Students can reflect on all the ways that homeowning fits into their broader economic and social world view. What would it mean to lose this opportunity as an individual (freedom and self esteem) and a society?