 Slavery existed for thousands of years in all sorts of societies and all parts of the world. To imagine human social life without it required an extraordinary effort. Yet, from time to time, eccentrics emerged to oppose it, most of them arguing that slavery is a moral monstrosity and therefore people should get rid of it. Such advocates generally elicited reactions ranging from gentle amusement to harsh scorn and even violent assault. When people bothered to give reasons for opposing the proposed abolition, they advanced various ideas. Here are ten such ideas I have encountered in my reading. 1. Slavery is natural. People differ and we must expect that those who are superior in a certain way, for example in intelligence, morality, knowledge, technological prowess or capacity for fighting, will make themselves the masters of those who are inferior in this regard. Abraham Lincoln expressed this idea in one of his famous 1858 debates with Senator Stephen Douglas. There is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white race. 2. Slavery has always existed. This reason exemplifies the logical fallacy argumentum ad antiquitatum, the argument to antiquity or tradition. Nevertheless, it's often persuaded people, especially those of a conservative bent. Even non-conservatives might give it weight on the quasi-Hyakian ground, that although we do not understand why a social institution persists, its persistence may nonetheless be well grounded in a logic we have yet to understand. 3. Every society on earth has slavery. The unspoken corollary is that every society must have slavery. The pervasiveness of an institution seems to many people to constitute compelling proof of its necessity. Perhaps as one variant maintains, every society has slavery because certain kinds of work are so difficult or degrading that no free person will do them. And therefore unless we have slaves to do these jobs, they will not get done. Someone, as the saying went in the Old South, has to be the mudsill and free people will not tolerate serving in this capacity. 4. The slaves are not capable of taking care of themselves. This idea was popular in the United States in the late 18th and early 19th centuries among people such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who regarded slavery as morally reprehensible, yet continued to hold slaves and to obtain personal services from them and income from the products these servants, as they preferred to call them, were compelled to produce. It would be cruel to set free people who would then, at best, fall into destitution and suffering. 5. Without masters the slaves will die off. This idea is the preceding one pushed to its extreme. Even after slavery was abolished in the United States in 1865, many people continued to voice this idea. Northern journalists travelling in the South immediately after the war reported that indeed the blacks were in a process of becoming extinct because of their high death rate, low birth rate and miserable economic condition. Sad but true some observers declared the freed people really were too incompetent, lazy or immoral to behave in ways consistent with their own group survival. 6. Where the common people are free, they are even worse off than slaves. This argument became popular in the South in the decades before the war between the states. Its leading exponent was the pro-slavery writer George Fitzhugh whose book titles speak for themselves, Sociology for the South, or the Failure of Free Society, 1854 and Cannibals All, or Slaves Without Masters, 1857. Fitzhugh seems to have taken many of his ideas from the reactionary racist Scottish writer Thomas Carlisle. The expression wage slave still echoes this antebellum outlook. True to his sociological theories, Fitzhugh wanted to extend slavery in the United States to working class white people for their own good. 7. Getting rid of slavery would occasion great bloodshed and other evils. In the United States many people assumed that the slave holders would never permit the termination of the slave system without an all out fight to preserve it. Sure enough when the Confederacy in the Union went to war set aside that the immediate issue was not the abolition of slavery but the secession of eleven southern states. Great bloodshed and other evils did ensue. These tragic events seemed in many people's minds to validate the reason they had given for opposing abolition. They evidently overlooked that except in Haiti slavery was abolished everywhere else in the western hemisphere without large-scale violence. 8. Without slavery the former slaves would run amok stealing, raping, killing and generally causing mayhem. Preservation of social order therefore rules out the abolition of slavery. Southerners lived in dread of slave uprisings. Northerners in the mid-19th century found the situation in their own region already sufficiently intolerable owing to the massive influx of drunken, brawling Irishmen into the country in the 1840s and 1850s. Throwing free blacks whom the Irish generally disliked into the mix would well-nigh guarantee social chaos. 9. Trying to get rid of slavery is foolishly utopian and impractical. Only a fuzzy-headed dreamer would advance such a cockamamie proposal. Serious people cannot afford to waste their time considering such far-fetched ideas. 10. Forget abolition. A far better plan is to keep the slaves sufficiently well-fed, clothed, housed and occasionally entertained and to take their minds off their exploitation by encouraging them to focus on the better life that awaits them in the hereafter. We cannot expect fairness or justice in this life but all of us including the slaves can aspire to a life of ease and joy in paradise. At one time countless people found one or more of the foregoing reasons adequate grounds on which to oppose the abolition of slavery. Yet in retrospect these reasons seem shabby, more rationalisations than reasons. Today these reasons or very similar ones are used by opponents of a different form of abolitionism, the proposal that government as we know it, or a holistic, individually non-consensual rule by an armed group that demands obedience and payment of taxes be abolished. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the foregoing reasons are more compelling in this regard than they were in regard to the proposed abolition of slavery.