Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHerrick, Michael
dc.date.accessioned2010-12-06T14:58:27Z
dc.date.available2010-12-06T14:58:27Z
dc.date.issued2010-12-06
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10222/13125
dc.description.abstractSlavery, protected by the United States constitution, expanded as new territories opened up. Heated debate over abolition accompanied slavery’s expansion. In Kentucky’s constitutional convention of 1792, antislavery sentiments for abolition were countered by an argument for protecting slavery. This thesis analyzes the proslavery argument of lawyer George Nicholas who opposed the antislavery argument of minister David Rice. Analyzing that debate, this thesis argues that an entrenched, economic and legal, proslavery argument overcame a humane, moral, antislavery argument. Including an analysis of the consequences for African Americans, the thesis concludes how and why a growing minority of slaveholders was able to perpetuate slavery in the second constitutional convention of 1799. Consequently, Kentucky presents an important case study of how slavery took hold and expanded in a state where the majority did not own slaves.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.subjectKentucky, slavery, George Nicholas,David Rice, antislavery, proslavery, constitutional convention, Harry Innesen_US
dc.titleKENTUCKY AND SLAVERY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1792en_US
dc.date.defence2010-11-22
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Historyen_US
dc.contributor.degreeMaster of Artsen_US
dc.contributor.external-examinernoneen_US
dc.contributor.graduate-coordinatorDr. J. Bannisteren_US
dc.contributor.thesis-readerDr. P. Riley, Dr. J. Bannister, Dr. J. Robertsen_US
dc.contributor.thesis-supervisorDr. P. Rileyen_US
dc.contributor.ethics-approvalNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.manuscriptsNot Applicableen_US
dc.contributor.copyright-releaseNot Applicableen_US
 Find Full text

Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record