The points of view that these two guys write from just sounds completely ridiculous. I do realize however, that this is largely due to the fact that I am reading these ideas in the 21st century. I understand that my view on these writings could very well be the exact opposite of what they are now if I were reading these in the 1800s because back then it was normal and regular. The statements they make for how the slaves feel and what they are and are not capable of sound completely ridiculous.
In his writing “The Universal Law of Slavery,” George Fitzhugh states, “the negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world”. That is just absurd. If this were true, then how does he explain the fact that at least 1,000 slaves escaped and/or tried to escape from the South to the North? Not only do they have white masters talking for them and living in their own dreamland thinking everyone loves the idea of slaves, but they also have a good amount of the slaves themselves thinking that it was what they were made to do, which also just sounds absurd.
George Fitzhugh constantly downgrades the African American slaves by mention how “inferior” and “intellectually week” they are. Saying that they could not support themselves and that they would crumble if they had swapped places and the whites were the slaves. This is just ridiculous seeing as there is no way to possibly know that they would be unsuccessful. If the white settlers had gone to Africa as slaves the African slave holders would probably say the exact same thing about the white slaves they had.
James Henry mentions many of the same things that George Fitzhugh does in his “The Mudsill Theory” by showing his dislike of how the North handles the African Americans and that the Southern slaves are far better off than the North ones not only for themselves but better off for the country too. However he does mention some points that I could not help but agree with. He states, “The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing”. Many places did announce their “abolishment” of slavery but is there not the chance that they had only renamed it or sugar coated it by giving them a few more freedoms than before thus
giving the look of freedom?
Though I do not agree with this, I can’t help but admire his very well structured and worded argument with New York’s senators on this debate on slavery. One point that I especially liked is how he ends his argument, "How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid in combining, and to lead them?” I can just imagine how that must have impacted the New York Senators and opened their eyes to what the now “free” slaves could do with this right to vote. Overall, these writings sound completely crazy for our time, but if you held it up against the standards of the time in which it was written they probably would have sounded pretty normal to everyday people.
Works Cited
United States. Cong. Senate. "The 'Mudsill' Theory," By James H. Hammond. S. Rept. Web. 28 Oct. 2011.
Fitzhugh, George. "The Universal Law of Slavery," by George Fitzhugh." Web. 28 October 2011. .
The Black American: A Documentary History, Third Edition, by Leslie H. Fishel, Jr. and Benjamin Quarles, Scott, Foresman and Company, Illinois, 1976,1970
No comments:
Post a Comment