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.