Why did southerners call slavery a "peculiar institution"?

Answer 1

The "peculiar institution" was a euphemism for slavery and the economic ramifications of it in the American South. The term aimed to explain away the seeming contradiction of legalized slavery in a country whose Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The term also refers to the reality of legally-recognized slavery conferring a property right over a person, as the term "peculiar" derives from the Latin word "peculium", meaning private property. It was in popular use during the first half of the 19th century, especially in legislative bodies, as the word slavery was deemed "improper," and was actually banned in certain areas

Answer 2

Peculiar Institution

Answer 3

Define Peculiar

Answer 4

Team Chief writes;
"This term was used both North and South to describe slavery. It was NOT exclusive to the South, just as slavery was not exclusive to the South. At one time, slavery was legal and practiced in every state in the Union."

Sorry, but this is mistaken. While it is true that at one time both sections had slavery, by the time this expression was coined it was exclusive to the South, and in fact, the term "peculiar institution" MEANS exactly that!!

The term was coined in the early 19th century, and BY Southerners, as a way of referring to slavery. But there is much more to its meaning and point than the Wikipedia article suggests.

First, the usual form of the expression was more like "OUR peculiar institution". When Northerners used the term, it was to speak of the institution of slavery in the SOUTH (it by now being abolished in their states), and, if not used in mockery, it was used by those who were defending the Southern position.

Note please that the expression is NOT "A peculiar institution" -- and does not mean that it is something "strange", as we most often use the word. (Quite the contrary, in fact!) It is typically used in a possessive expression -- "OUR [or 'their') peculiar institution", "the peculiar institution OF THE SOUTH", etc.

Here are the dictionary entries that best describe the meaning of the term in this expression -
4. belonging characteristically (usually fol. by to): an expression peculiar to Canadians.
5. belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing: the peculiar properties of a drug.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peculiar

The word DID carry the sense of being something that set the South apart --differentiated them from the North. But it was NOT used simply as a euphemism (as might be the case if "strange" or "unusual" were the meaning). In fact, this very way of putting it was more an active DEFENSE of slavery, as something good and proper!

The best examples of this usage and viewpoint are found in the speeches of John Calhoun in Congress. The best-known example is the beginning of his speech in Feb 1837 arguing against Congress's receiving abolition petitions --

"The peculiar institution of the South—that, on the maintenance of which the very existence of the slaveholding States depends"
http://www.wfu.edu/%7Ezulick/340/calhoun2.html

In this speech, Calhoun goes on to argue (against his forbears!) that slavery was not just a 'necessary evil', but a positive GOOD. (He is perhaps the father of this argument, and so in a sense father to the Confederacy, not JUST for the "states' rights" argument he used in his battles against the tariff, but in his arguments FOR slavery.)

This argument was to be adopted by many in the following years. Here is another famous expression of it in the "Cornerstone Speech" of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens in March 1861, commenting on their new Constitution --

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the ***** in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

(Fascinating speech! Note that it totally undercuts the claim that the South was fighting only for "states rights", not for slavery.Read the following section where he argues that Jefferson was wrong because slavery is a GOOD thing, the way things ought to be.)


And here is an example of the term being used by a Northerner, but basically to SUPPORT the Southern view that 'no one has the right to mess with OUR institution' --

Stephen Douglas, in his last debate with Lincoln -Oct 15, 1858
"What right have we to interfere with slavery any more than we have to interfere with any other question? He says that this slavery question is now the bone of contention. Why? Simply because agitators have combined in all the free States to make war upon it. Suppose the agitators in the States should combine in one-half of the Union to make war upon the railroad system of the other half? They would thus be driven to the same sectional strife. Suppose one section makes war upon any other PECULIAR INSTITUTION OF THE OPPOSITE SECTION, and the same strife is produced. . . "
http://www.auburn.edu/~lakwean/hist2010/doc1858_lincdougdeb07.html

The section in caps makes it clear that the notion is that of something exclusively characteristic of the section (that is 'their own')

Answer 5

Your question infers that this term was exclusive to the South.

This is incorrect. This term was used both North and South to describe slavery. It was NOT exclusive to the South, just as slavery was not exclusive to the South. At one time, slavery was legal and practiced in every state in the Union.

Or didn't you know that?

Answer 6

trying to be P.C.

Answer 7

.