Module 8: "Proslavery Arguments: George Fitzhugh and James Henry Hammond"

George Fitzhugh and James Henry Hammond were a pair of individuals from the mid 1800's who had strong opinions when it came to the rights and wrongs of slavery. Both firmly believed that slavery was a necessity for the white population to excel. Both Fitzhugh's and Hammond wrote their thoughts down on this matter in their own personal writings; Fitzhugh's titled "The Universal Law of Slavery" and Hammond's titled "The 'Mudsill' Theory". Throughout this blog I will be critiquing both mens views on slavery and why I personally disagree with many of their points.

George Fitzhugh was a powerful advocate for slavery who described his views on this matter in his writing titled "The Universal Law of Slavery". He starts off his paper by saying "he the negro is but a grown up child, and must be governed as child" (Fitzhugh). Right off the bat you can tell this man's take on slavery may be a bit turned around just from his first sentence analogy of negros. Fitzhugh goes on to say that eventually, the black population will only become a burden to the rest of society. Not only is that a ridiculous assumption, but just over a hundred years later our very own commander in chief is of African decent. The author even try's to persuade individuals who sympathized with negros into believing that "his slavery here relieves him from a far more cruel slavery in Africa" (Fitzhugh). In my opinion, saving the negros from slavery in Africa is a completely irrelevant excuse to the controversy of slavery. I believe the controversy of slavery to be the depriving of freedom from another individual. To say you were doing the African American a courtesy by making them your slave is simply a ridiculous statement. It doesn't make sense to say your saving somebody from a terrible world and then virtually creating the same hell for them. Fitzhugh's entire writing goes on to sum up his beliefs to why slavery is needed and ultimately best for the negro population. I agreed with zero of his points and found most of them to be completely flawed.

James Henry Hammond was another advocate for slavery in the mid 1800's. As well as Fitzhugh's, Hammond vocally announced his thoughts on slavery to the U.S Senate in a speech titled "The 'Mudsill' Theory". Hammond begins his writing with the argument that "in all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life" (Hammond). With Hammonds first argument I slightly agree. I believe that all societies do need a 'class' to perform certain duties, but that class doesn't have to be a specific race. Every society needs people doing different jobs, some obviously less important than others, but none the less if they weren't performed society wouldn't function correctly. But again I believe that 'class' can be any type of race and in no way should it be performed in any type of slavery. They would obviously have to be compensated for their duties. Hammond goes on to admit that slavery can be ran poorly, but that's why it should be tolerated in the U.S; because they cloth, feed, and home all their slaves. Even though the U.S may have treated their slaves more civilized than others, that's still no excuse to take another mans freedom. Hammond's take on slavery was blatantly much lower key than Fitzhugh's, however, I still did not agree with many things he stated.

George Fitzhugh's and James Henry Hammond both had strong opinions on why slavery should be tolerated in the United States. Fitzhugh's views were completely unrealistic, none of which I agreed with whatsoever. Hammond on the other hand, had some realistic points involved in his speech, but the racism in both mens words were heavily noted. Although Hammond was obviously pro slavery, if a few of his statements were reworded here and there, they might still be tolerated in todays society. Overall, Fitzhugh's and Hammond did not hide the fact that they believed slavery to be a necessity for the United States of America.

Works Cited

Fitzhugh, George. "The Universal Law of Slavery"

Hammond, James H. "The 'Mudsill' Theory" 

"Slavery." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Wed. 29 Oct. 2011

      <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery>.

Module 5: "Zinns American Revolution"

Howard Zinn paints a vivid picture of the dark cloud the American Revolution cast over the colonizing states in his book A People's History of the United States. Before the American Revolution began there had always been a concentration of wealth, allowing that specific population the majority of power. Finally, in 1776, these upperclass citizens in the English colonies "found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the Untied States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from favorites of the British Empire" (Zinn 47). Ultimately, the rich and powerful had just concocted the ultimate plan to gain and even surpass the level of authority they already had.

Zinn even admits that "the Founding Fathers deserve the awed tribute they have received over the centuries" (Zinn 47).

The first aspect of the American Revolution Zinn discusses is the power struggle between the colonial elites and the English. There were numerous rebellions by colonial poor's against the landowning rich. Once the revolution got underway and the rich began to grow stronger, while the poor stooped lower than ever before; harsh feelings between the two began to rise. In the summer of 1765 a shoemaker by the name of Ebenezer MacIntosh led a mod of angry rioters to numerous wealthy livings to raise hell. They were said to have destroyed the homes, ate their food, drank their beverages, and looted the homes of all valuables. Zinn remarks "It was one of those moments in which fury against the rich went further than leaders. . . wanted" (Zinn 49). Class discrimination tore apart entire cities faster than had ever been seen before.

Zinn also talks about a "Regulator Movement" in North Carolina that consisted of white farmers. It was organized to protest the wealthy and corrupt officials through 1766 to 1771 during the revolution. The members of this movement actually referred to themselves as "poor Industrious peasants" (Zinn 50). This organization resented any sort of tax or new law that was meant to hurt the lower class and help the upper class. Although the did not consist of servants or slaves, the regulators did speak on behalf of owners, squatters, and tenants.

Military action in social and and cultural content began to take on an important role in the revolution. At this point, militias could be formed at the drop of a dime, considering the hatred towards separate classes and so many colonists being armed. Despite complaints against forcing citizens into the war, the British began enlisting sailors who had no other choice but to obey. The conflict with military at this time was "by dominating everything in its time, it diminished other issues, made people choose sides in the one contest that was publicly important, forced people onto the side of the revolution whose interest in independence was not at all obvious" (Zinn 62). The war was playing right into the hands of the ruling elite who were more secure against internal trouble than ever. Soon the Continental Congress came together to write the nations new laws. The controversy going along with this was the congress overwhelmingly consisted of the rich. This resulted in the same men holding the power who did in the colonies. Once the revolution had come to an end with the victory, numerous soldiers were not paid for their services and the ones who were payed were most likely paid in devalued money.

Works Cited

"American Revolution." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_revolution>.

Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492-present. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. Print.