Module 6 - A Critical Analysis of the Pro-Slavery Stance of George Fitzhugh and James Henry Hammond

The Economics of Slavery





In the antebellum period, George Fitzhugh and James Henry Hammond, two prominent Southerners, took the position that slavery was not evil but rather a good. Both men explained the reasons for their pro-slavery position and tried to convince the senate and the people that slavery was beneficial to the South and America as a whole. Did these men really hold the value that slavery was good for everyone or were their arguments simply to pull the wool over the eyes of the northerners and the senate to foster their own economic interest and that of the South?


In an examination of The Universal Law of Slavery, George Fitzhugh explained his reasoning for his pro-slavery stance by making an analogy between the relationship of a parent and a child to that of a master and a slave. This false analogy shows Fitzhugh’s flawed reasoning by comparing two very dissimilar items. In his explanation, Fitzhugh claimed that blacks are inherently less capable of taking care of themselves in a free market system. This reasoning seems to have its basis in a biological argument and suggests that there are certain characteristics or predispositions that set certain races apart from others in their ability to fend for themselves and compete in a free market. Of course, we know that there is no scientific basis for Fitzhugh’s argument. With no suggestions (other than slavery) for the survival of blacks in a free market system, one questions the sincerity of Fitzhugh's concern. In his argument for slavery, Fitzhugh also criticized elements of black culture. He thought that their work ethics, morals and lack of wit made them unable to compete in a free market system. However, it is only logical for one to ask, why would anyone including slaves want to work very hard when there was not a vested interest in the outcome of the labor through wealth and profits? Also, with blacks being deprived of reading and writing skills with only a few being taught by their masters, it is possible that the intellectual inferiority or lack of wit referred to by Fitzhugh is merely a result of a high level of illiteracy which could easily be remedied by allowing blacks the opportunity to learn to read and write and the opportunity to own property. Instead, the claim that black people aren’t as smart as whites also noted in Thomas Jefferson in Freedom – A History of the U.S., On Slavery, From Notes From Virginia 1782 p.2) was supported by laws that made it a crime to teach blacks to read and write. Learning reading and writing skills would definitely provide an opportunity for slaves and equip them with the ability to compete fairly in a competitive market system. One white woman in Norfolk, Virginia, who taught free blacks in her home, was arrested and put in jail. As a result, one might be inclined to say that the concern expressed for the survival of slaves in a free market economy was not a genuine one.


The opinions put forth by Fitzhugh do not prove that there is a natural predisposition for success but instead they are learned behaviors which can easily be taught. It is clear that in an effort for Southerners to convince themselves that slavery was right, they began to create reasons to justify their belief and created laws to ensure that the status quo remained.


What was Fitzhugh’s motive for writing on his pro-slavery position? Was he concerned for the well-being of slaves or was his position purely for his own economic gain and that of the South? According to Encyclopedia of Southern Culture by Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris, Fitzhugh was from Port Royal, Virginia and was the descendent of an old southern family that had fallen on hard times. He practiced law and struggled as a small planter but made a reputation with his books, Sociology for the South (1854) and Cannibals All (1857). What would it mean for the South if their economic profitability depended on slavery? It is obvious that the explosive growth of cotton plantations changed the nature of southern slave labor. According to Faragher, in 1850, 55 percent of all slaves were engaged in cotton growing. Another 20 percent labor to produce other crops labored to produce other crops: tobacco (10 percent) rice, sugar and hemp. About 15 percent of all slaves were domestic servants, and the remaining 10 percent worked in mining, lumbering, industry, and construction (p.275). It is obvious that the economy of the south was heavily dependent on slavery and that without slavery the economic prosperity which existed in the south in the early 19th century may have ceased to exist.


In the South, many people believed that slavery was a profitable way of life. Many people argued that if slavery was abolished it would wreck the Southern economy (PBS.org), James Henry Hammond was one of them. He said, “Do you imagine you could prevail on us to give up a thousand million dollars in the value of our slaves, and a thousand million more in the value of our lands?" (See reference for audio). PBS.org describes James Henry Hammond in this way “You would have a difficult time finding a more southern southerner than James Henry Hammond. He owned large plantations on the Savannah River in his native South Carolina. He was a lawyer who thought secession of the southern states a good idea long before others did. And he expressed his opinion as a congressman in 1835 and as governor of South Carolina in 1842.” Hammond economic interest was also probably his primary reason for his pro-slavery stance. In 1848 in a speech to the senate James Henry Hammond spoke of his “Mudsill Theory” in which he also used Glory by Association to place slavery as a Godly act. History has shown that man has often thought it easier to glorify his own race using varying rationale to segregate and in some cases negate (destroy) others. Adolf Hitler used the same rationale in his autobiography ‘Mein Kampf’. In an effort to convince the senate that slavery was not only beneficial but good Hammond used this fallacy.


Overall, Fitzhugh and Hammond took a pro-slavery stance for economic reasons which ultimately benefited themselves and the South. It is clear that in doing so they had to convince the senate and northerners that slavery was good and equally beneficial to them and was simply a natural device created by God to advance theories of white superiority. In this reasoning, the racial dimension to slavery continued to evolve and was used to exploit and perpetuate the economics.


Works Cited


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

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


The 'Mudsill' Theory," by James Henry Hammond

Freedom: A History of US. Thomas Jefferson on Slavery, From Notes From Virginia 1782.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h3439.html. Retrieved July 20, 2007.


Image


http://www.pbs.org/


Audio


http://www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web05/features/media_players/W09.html
Retrieved July 20, 2007.

The Struggle for Women's Rights in White Male America

Module 5: Women in Revolutionary America:

Was the Revolution revolutionary for women? How so, how not? Were women better off after the Revolution or before?

To some, women’s position in pre and post-revolutionary America on some levels resembled that of slaves. Every possible institution from religion to laws to education or the lack thereof to job opportunities, just to name a few, were employed to disenfranchise women and keep them from claiming positions of power and wealth. The revolution was indeed revolutionary for women in a slow somewhat gradual process. Although they held similar ideologies of equal rights and freedom to their white male counterpart during the war, when it was all said and done they had to embark on yet another journey to gain equal rights with white male America.
Before the war, women in colonial America were subservient to their husbands. They held ideologies that reflected that their place was in the home as childbearer and companions to their husbands. This is evident in Lucy Winthrop Downing’s writing where she claims “a true wife accounts her subjection, her honor and freedom…” (Faragher, p.71). These ideologies were a spillover from the laws of Great Britain. One such example is an English law summarized in a document of 1632 entitled “'The Lawes Resolution of Womens Rights': In this consolidation which we call wedlock is a locking together. It is true, that man and wife are one person, but understand in what manner….Her new self is her superior; her companion, her master….” (Zinn p.83). As a result of this law, man’s “superior” position in society was indoctrinated in the minds of women. Men enjoyed wealth and status by exploiting his wife earnings, labor and anything of monetary value.

Women’s contribution during the war was pivotal in many respects. They served their country in many capacities – as nurses, seamstresses, and spies and also accompanied the armies in the capacity of wives, prostitutes, cooks and launders (Faragher p.181). Not surprising, they also served on the battlefields as in the case of Molly Pitcher who took her husband’s place continuing to fire cannons after he was killed. However, it was the wives of important politicians who showed any remote semblance of clout or influence in the society. For example, Abigail Adams (wife of John Adams) and Mercy Otis Warren (sister of the Patriotic James Otis, Jr.) who “turned their home into a center of Patriot Political activity scorning Loyalist (Faragher p.171). These women are the ones who history recognizes while the contributions of others continue to be overlooked or are mentioned only in passing. Women’s role in the war was also pivotal in helping to break from the indoctrinated “superior” white male ideologies. By making contribution in all spheres of society while the men were at war, women, for the first time, realized they could do everything their white male counterpart were doing. For example, they were taking charge of the family farms, businesses, taking care of the home and in some cases marching on the frontlines - an important feat toward equal rights.

After the war women suffered a major setback. The 1776 Constitution of New Jersey, by granting the vote to “all free inhabitants who met the property requirement,” enfranchised women (Faragher p.200). Men, realizing that women had an equal number of votes protested and were able to pass a law which limited voting to only “free white male citizens.” Later, as more women became more educated and began to get become more involved in anti-slavery small strides were made towards equality. In 1848 the modern Women’s Suffrage began with the Seneca Falls Convention. The Convention adopted a “Declaration of Sentiments” similar to the “Declaration of Independence” which used appeal to pity to declare that women had been disenfranchised in their their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. It would take decades of unwavering effort by legions of women to attain one of the Declaration’s demand: the right to vote. Although women’s rights, especially the right to vote would not immediately follow the revolutionary war it provided the foundation to a journey for which women would embark upon.


Works Cited

Faragher, John Mack. Out of Many: A History of the American People. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 2006.

Sigerman, Harriet. A Place At The Table: Struggles for Equality in America. Road Trip for Suffrage, Cross Country 1915 p. 67.

Zinn, Howard: A People’s History of the United States Volume 1: American Beginnings to reconstruction: The New Press, New York, 2003.

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/expref/crusader/seneca.html


Images Cited

http://memory.loc.gov/learn/lessons/99/suffrage/intro.html

Did the American Revolutionary War Make the Ruling Elite More Secure Against Internal Trouble?

Module 4:

Zinn argues that the American Revolutionary War “was making the ruling elite more secure against internal trouble.” (p.62)


Zinn’s argument is based on two premises 1) poor people had an opportunity to join the military and make money fighting for America 2) the war was on everyone’s minds and as a result this provided a barrier for the elites against rising upheavals and trouble in America. Although I agree with Zinn’s argument that the Revolutionary War provided an opportunity for poor people to make money and was a source of distraction and a smokescreen for the ruling elite, my position deviates from his, in that, I would not go so far as to say that the ruling elite were secure against internal trouble. As long as a gross economic disparity existed between the elites and the landless poor I believe that there would always be a reason for uprising and upheavals. I believe that a desire for equality and equity provided the impetus for change and sovereignty which Americans sought from the British, and possibly the same principle could be applied now against the ruling elites.

When the war broke out, there were many people who were undecided about their allegiance and had to take sides. John Mack Faragher, author of Out of Many claims that “many sat on the fence, confused by the conflict, waiting for a clear turn in the tide of the struggle before declaring their allegiance” (p.182). To the Patriots, it was clearly a “them” and “us” syndrome and the consequences of being one of “them” came in the form of harsh punishments. Patriots created laws to punish anyone who refused to swear allegiance to their cause which resulted in a loss of civil rights as well as property. As a result, this forced many sitting on the fence to align themselves with American ideologies of freedom and justice.

An article in the Journal of the Early Republic entitled Thinking about Elites in the Early Republic by Andrew M. Schocket shows us the extent to which elites tried to protect their position of power. Schocket claims that in all sorts of arenas, various elites used the state (in the generic sense) to enforce their interests. He claims that measures such as the Missouri Compromise garnered the support and reinforced the interests of the vast majority of the southern electorate; the Fugitive Slave Act is a striking example of an elite using its leverage over national politics to further its own interests. Other examples involve the invocation of eminent domain on behalf of internal improvement companies and the increasingly generous distribution of railroad subsidies. Elite influence extended to the bench, too. The evolution of jurisprudence against combinations that was used to prosecute strikers and labor organizers and the limitations on damages suits against canal and railroad companies testified eloquently to the power of small groups to bend the state to their will.

Even with the elites protecting their interests through politics, uprising was still evident both during and after the war. Zinn makes note of the problem of democracy in the post-Revolutionary scoiety and identifies the problem not laying in the Constitutional limitations but in the division of society into rich and poor (p.73). This is evident in Shays Rebellion - an uprising in 1786 where an oppressed group of farmers rose up against the elite. The elite may have provided a smokescreen for the vast accumulation of their wealth but they in no way secured themselves against upheavals. It was only a matter of time before uprisings and change had to occur.

Works Cited

Faragher, John Mack. Out of Many: A History of the American People. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 2006.


Zinn, Howard: A People’s History of the United States Volume 1: American Beginnings to reconstruction: The New Press, New York, 2003.

Thinking about Elites in the Early Republic. Andrew M. Schocket. Journal of the Early Republic Indianapolis: Winter 2005. Vol.25, Iss. 4; pg. 547, 9 pgs.

Images cited

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461539796/American_Revolution_Uniforms.html

Module 3 - British Imperialism on American Colonials

Explore characteristics of imperialism, especially British imperialism in the Americas.
Explore justifications given by the King and Parliament and/or colonials (those peoples of European descent residing in the colonies), implicit or explicit, for imperialism.

What is Imperialism and how did it come about?

Imperialism is the defined as the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies. The British Empire was able to extend rule or authority over the Americas through gains from trade, mercantilism politics and legislature during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The success of the Americas to provide the motherland with profits which were never before realized is firmly rooted in the industry of forced labor through both indentured servants and slaves. In “Out of Many” by Faragher and Buhle, they recognize that the economy of Great Britain was built upon the profits and accumulation of capital obtained from slavery.
According to Howard Zinn, in “A People’s History of the United States, the Virginians of 1619 were desperate for labor, to grow enough food to stay alive. They needed labor, to grow corn for subsistence and tobacco for export. The colonizers, realizing that they were outnumbered by the Indians and couldn’t force them to work started to exporting slaves from West Africa. The slave trade in the Americas may have started from a need for increased labor but it quickly transformed to a profitable industry with an increasing number of plantation colonies. “Out of Many” by Faragher and Buhle, states that a collaboration of British and American traders made slavery possible. Slaves were regarded as a valuable commodity and a means to an end - which at the time equated to limitless profit and increased wealth. This was the premise which drove England and the Americas to enslave many West Africans.


How was imperialist Britain able to rule over the Americas or exercise control over them?

With access to crops, like tobacco, Britain was making far more profits than its trading partner, colonial America. From 1700 to 1740 according to “Out of Many,” by Faragher and Buhle, the growth in American and African demand for manufactured goods accounted for nearly 70 percent of the expansion of British exports. This dependence on Britain for manufactured goods and the increasing number of exports from colonial America to Britain placed Britain in a position of rule and authority. As a result of this new wealth gained from trade, Britain was poised to become a major superpower by growth of ports, and financing some of the first modern banks.

Another form of rule implemented by Britain on colonial America was through mercantilism. “Out of Many,” by Faragher and Buhle, defines mercantilism as a system of regulations or a way of political control of the economy by state. The monarchy and Parliament established a uniform national monetary system, regulated wages, encourage agriculture and manufacturing with subsidies, and erected tariff barriers to protect themselves from foreign competition. England also sought to organize and control colonial trade to the maximum advantage of its own shippers, merchants, manufacturers and bureaucrats.

Legislation was implemented to continue the dominion and exploitation of Britain over its colonies. For example, between 1651 and 1696 Parliament passed a series of acts: the Navigation Acts, the Wool Act of 1699 the Hat Act of 1732 and the Iron Act of 1750 to maintain profitability in trade deals with colonial America. The Navigation Act served to prevent the colonies from importing goods from other countries except Britain and in the case of the Wool, Hat and Iron Acts these served to prevent any of the colonies from producing competing products with Britain.

Colonial America also needed the help of Great Britain to protect them in times of slave revolt and against threat of outside nations. The increased wealth of plantation owners in colonial America presented threats for revolts among the poor whites and the black slaves. As a result, measures had to be put in place to assure whites that they were superior to black and also provide economic kickbacks to them in an effort to appease them. This was one proactive step taken to curb any collusion which may have taken place with these two oppressed groups.

In the end, both the imperialist and colonials were driven by a profits motive which had ravaging repercussion on the African people. The desires of the people of America to create a new profitable society greatly replicated the England Empire. England capitalized on the weakeness of the peoples of colonial America and Africans for its advancement of wealth and power.

Works Cited

Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States Volume 1: American Beginnings to Reconstruction. The New Press, New York, 2003.

Faragher, John Mack. Out of Many: A History of the American People. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 2006.