Module 7~ A Proud Nation

The podcast about Westward Expansion explain to us the indomitable power of the US to easily conquer lands and gain even more power. The Mexican- American War provided to the US “1.5 million square miles territory, an increase of nearly 70 percent” (Faragher) We can see that the insatiability to own more and more land and to become the more powerful nation in the world, lead the US to various conflicts and wars.

Whites were also proud of their superiority and we learn from the podcast how they claimed that God gave them a “special mandate to be a beacon or model to others”. So they thought they were the only superior and capable race that would serve as a role model to others. Racism was strong back in those times, so much that they declared that the difference that they had with Indians was not a difference of nature but of circumstance. They take this and compare it with African Americans, claiming that they moral and physical differences were “fixed in nature”. “Does it follow that it is right to enslave a man because he is black? Will short curled hair, like wool, instead of Christian hair, as it is called by those whose hearts are as hard as the millstone, help the argument?”(Otis) As this quote states, how can white people support their statement that blacks are biologically inferior?

I also find intriguing the “racial ideologies” that were mentioned in the podcast. The racial ideology for Indians is a system of extermination or assimilation. At least they were given the opportunity to assimilate with whites, to be more like them. On the other hand, the racial ideology for African Americans was that they must remain slaves, since they difference are fixed in nature. Furthermore, they were not susceptible to be murdered since they were the only “marketable” species.

The famous painting that is depicted in the podcast that demonstrates a virgin woman, illustrates the idea that Anglo-Americans are more especial than the other races. They bring “technology, order, civilization”. The

The empire which US have created has been based on immoral act, and we know that one of the most controversial ones has been slavery. It is sad to know how this horrendous actions were so strong back in those times, and nevertheless we still find some racism nowadays. Anglo-americans have also proved their skills for survivals and their infinite greed to acquire more land and to enslave other races which they considered inferior, this way working their way up to the top, because this is what they have always believed, that they are superior to others.

Below is a video showing how there still is some racism in America, and how this might influence the coming presidential election.

Works Cited

James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (London, 1776), pp. 43-44; Lerone Bennett, Ebony Pictorial History of Black America, Vol I, (Nashville, 1971), p. 71.

Faragher, John Mack, et. al., eds. Out Of Many: A History of the American People. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2006.

Video from Youtube. "Discussing Racism in Kentucky's 2008 Presidential Election" http://youtube.com/watch?v=IKWHCZSWbHU

Module 6~ Advocates of Slavery: Where are the facts?

Fitzhugh and Hammond both present a set of ludicrous arguments advocating slavery. Back in those times, people might have responded seriously to these, but nowadays we read it and all we can deduct from these are a set of absurd arguments. Their arguments eventually lose credibility, as they themselves do not even know how to support their arguments with factual evidence.

Fitzhugh tries to warn people that a black person “would become an insufferable burden to society”, therefore, “Society has the right to prevent this, and can only do so by subjecting him to domestic slavery”. To support his statement he further adds that the negro race is inferior to the white one. He also claims that slaves would be “devoured by savages and cannibals” if they were sent to Africa and would “freeze or starve” if they were in the North. To make the argument even more ridiculous he adds that the slavery in America relieves them from “a far more cruel slavery in Africa” even from “every brutal vice and crime that can disgrace humanity”. By stating this, he tries to justify the enslavement of many blacks, and try to point out the many cruelties that slaves would suffer if it would not be for them. I think that slavery is slavery not matter where it is taking place. It is also ridiculous that he mentioned “disgrace humanity” because that is what all slaves suffer the very second they became slaves. They lost their dignity and freedom to harsh and immoral ways that tortured them inconceivably.

“The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world” Did Fitzhugh really thought that there is such thing as a happy and free slave? If that would be the case, then the person wouldn’t be categorized as a slave. This argument doesn’t even have evidence to support itself. I am sure that if back then slaves knew how to read they would immediately oppose to what Fitzhugh said.

Fitzhugh further adds that “the master labors for the slave, they exchange industrial value”, and that the capitalist gives nothing and “lives by mere exploitations”. It is curious how he supports that slaves masters contribute to the society by exchanging industrial value. The masters who owned slaves only sought for their own benefit, and not for the whole society. If he owned slaves was because he needed to exploit innocent people, take away their freedom, force them to labor under harsh circumstances, and all solely for his own benefit.

Another advocate of slavery is James Henry Hammond. He presents his “Mudsill theory” implying that slaves are necessary for the society, and are crucial for the “higher class to move civilization forward” Therefore, he is basically saying that there must be some kind of people that would do the worst kind of jobs so that the high class can enjoy their riches and move forward, while the exploited ones remain the same. However, I find his Mudsill theory weak and absurd since that doesn’t justify the fact that humans are to be treated like animals, to labor in harsh conditions that dehumanizes them. If no white man would labor in such conditions why should a black man? What makes black people “biologically inferior” ? There is no proof that they are inferior and that they cannot assimilate in a free society.

Both Hammond and Fitzhugh suggest that having slaves is good for society since it will lead it to a major economic development and they consistently claim that they are only doing a favor to blacks by enslaving them, otherwise they would suffer more in other places, for example if they go back to Africa. Similar to Fitzhugh, Hammond states that slaves are “happy and content”. (See above). Slaves might have been happy and content but only when they were surrounded by their own kind. I think that after so many torturous actions against them, their only hope and happiness can be found in people who are in their same situation as them. However, this does not justifies that they were overall happy for being slaves.

I completely disagree with these two advocates point of view. I disagree when they state that slaves are having a better life under their conditions and that they are biologically inferior. These two arguments would not be able to resonate with people nowadays since such controversial topic such as denying a person’s freedom has been thoroughly criticized and people are more skeptical and no longer take someone’s opinion as it is, but consults the facts before making up their minds.

Works Cited

Harriet Beecher Stowe’s America. 19 July 2008 .

James Henry Hammond. "The 'Mudsill' Theory." Speech to the U.S. Senate, March 4, 1858.

Leslie H. Fishel, Jr. and Benjamin Quarles, Scott. Foresman The Black American: A Documentary History, Third Edition. Foresman and Company, Illinois, 1976,1970.

Module 4: So Much for a Revolution

The Revolution brought prosperity and a better life to the rich people, but what happened to the other half? Edward Morgan claims that the revolution was just a “struggle for office and power between members of an upper class”. Richard Morris insists that the revolution “did nothing to end and little to ameliorate white bondage”. Carl Degler states “the men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class” All these figures along with Zinn’s analysis indicates how the revolution was merely an act seeking the best for the wealthy people, and doing nothing for those unprivileged ones.
Even Frederick Douglass acknowledges this when he said that independence was for the rich, not for him, adding that while they rejoice, he mourns. He viewed everything as a mere sham, and claims “this fourth of July is yours, not mine” referring to the wealthy people. He represented the African American community, among those were slaves, laborers, farmers, all those which didn’t experience any change after the revolution.
Zinn argues that the native Americans and Indians “have been ignored by the fine words of the Declaration, had not been considered equal”. The revolution didn’t benefit them at all, since without the presence of the British , Americans could now push Indians out of their lands, killing those who resisted and seeking for imperial control in the West.
Zinn claims that to many Americans the Constitution of 1787 “has seemed a work of genius put together by wise, humane men who created a legal framework for democracy and equality”. However, this results ironic when Charles Beard states that the Constitution was composed by wealthy people and everything was “written merely to benefit the Founding Fathers personally”. Therefore, we can see how the interests of slaves, indentured servants, women and men without property were not even considered.
I believe that even the minority groups were not considered while putting together the Constitution, it did indeed mark a new era for the American society. The rhetoric of Revolution did led slavery to an end, even if it was done at a very slow pace. Zinn claims that the Revolution “created space and opportunity for blacks to begin making demands of white society”, referring to those few black elites.
Moreover, Zinn promptly states that the Founding Fathers were trying to achieve a balance of power, but they wanted a balance that kept things the way they were, not a balance that would make every single being equal among others.

Douglass, Frederick. Frederick Douglass on the Fourth of July.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003.

Module 3~ Looking at laws governing slaves

Slavery was one of the most offensive and dehumanizing acts that has existed throughout history. After I read and understood the laws governing slaves I could see how terrible was the reality to some people who were victim of such. It is hard to believe that slavery was viewed as something normal and how people were harshly humiliated.

The South Carolina Slave Code greatly emphasizes that slaves were those people who were “negroes, mulatoes, mestizos or Indians” We can see how such discrimination doomed many people’s lives and their destiny. They were destined to be slaves, and as such the laws permitted them to be whipped, to be treated like objects, to obey their masters and also took their right to posses anything. They were searched for guns, and the master had the right to search their houses “diligently and effectually”. Dignity was taken from slaves and they basically had nothing to hide since they were scrutinized. This Slave Code emphasizes mainly the responsibilities of masters to be careful with their slaves, to have them in control at all times. Slaves could not do anything without their master’s permission, they owned their lives.

The Alabama Slave Code emphasizes the responsibility of the masters to control the lives of the slaves. They also forbid whites, free negroes or mulattoes to socialize with slaves. Slaves could not posses any animals, or any property whatsoever. They were deprived of any basic human right or human action. It is humorous how it mentions that “no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted on any slave” when they were suffering enough already. They were already in great pain, both physically and psychologically and they even have the nerve to talk about cruel or unusual punishment.

The Louisiana’s Code Noir points out the importance of the master’s role in the slave’s life. They were even more important than the slave’s parents. They made it “imperative on masters to impart religious instruction to their slaves”. This shows how they would conveniently teach them about religion, perhaps as an excuse for the bad treatment against slaves. Maybe they wanted to teach them about repentance and forgiveness, to find a way to escape from their guilt. They didn’t grant permission to whites to marry blacks. This again shows how racism was so strong at those times that there were even laws that whites could not mix with blacks. It also emphasizes how the children born from a slaves marriage would be destined to be a slave, and it also points out that children were always to stay with the mother regardless if she was a slave or a free woman. However, I was surprised to read that masters could not force slaves to marry against their will , and that Christians slaves had to be buried in holy ground. Why would they care to favor the slaves when they were mainly mistreated and dehumanized? Some of these laws would go to the extreme, and none would make sense when I look at it as a whole. How can they teach them about religion and then make them suffer a life in hell while they are alive?
Moreover, the Louisiana’s code proceeds to announce that slaves cannot own any property, cannot get together with others of their same specie, cannot do business, but they do have some rights after all. Like if the slave is ill or disabled, they have to be fed and provided by their masters. Masters who owned a slave were basically responsible for their life, so if they were to get sick they had to spent their money on them , for example to maintain them at hospitals.
Slaves who steal, try to run away, or struck their masters are subject to death penalty.
I wonder what can be worse for a slave’s life, if every second they live is a life of torture and torment. As Zinn says “the power of law and the immediate power of the overseer to invoke whipping, burning, mutilation and death” So I guess they would have been better off dead than being subject to any of the above. It is just unimaginable.

I would say that there was a point where people could not longer resist. If slaves tried to run away they could be killed as a punishment, but I guess that really didn’t matter for them, and many of them did try to escape, trying to find freedom. As Zinn says that “so many blacks did run away must be a sign of a powerful rebellion” And sometimes, even if rebellions could be put to a stop, it shows how human beings cannot tolerate mistreatment, not even to the degree that slaves were treated.

The Slave Code for the District of Columbia emphasizes similar points to the latter law that slavery was inherited through the mother and that slaves were defined solely as a property. However, the slave code for this was later removed by president Lincoln, who awarded compensation to over two thousand slaves. Finally they found freedom and “the laws became of historical interest only”

Works Cited
"The Slavery Code of the District of Columbia." 1862. Slave and the Courts. 1 July 2008 .
Thomas Cooper and David J. McCord, ed., Statutes at Large of South Carolina, (10 Vols., Columbia, 1836-1841) VII, pp. 352-356.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: The New Press, 2003
Aikin, John G. "A Digest of the Laws of the State of Alabama." 1833. Alabama Archives: Slave Code of 1833. 1 July 2008 .B. F. French, Historical Collections of Louisiana: Embracing Translations of Many Rare and Valuable Documents Relating to the Natural, Civil, and Political History of that State (New York: D. Appleton, 1851).