Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## Option3.docx
– ## george-fitzhugh_slavery-justified.pdf
**## Option3.docx**
Option 3: Fitzhugh Journal Assignment
Part 1: Write 100 words on places where you agree with Fitzhugh.
Part 2: Write 100 words on places where you disagree with Fitzhugh.
Part 3: Write 100 words about how this essay made you feel.
**## george-fitzhugh_slavery-justified.pdf**
George Fitzhugh, Slavery Justified (1854)
Fitzhugh was the descendant of an old southern family that had fallen on hard times. He
practiced law and struggled as a small planter, but he ultimately made a reputation
through his writings, which roused southerners to take a new and higher ground in
defense of slavery. Fitzhugh insisted that all labor, not merely black, had to be enslaved,
and that the world must become either all slave or all free. These views had become
commonplace in the South by the 1850s, but his originality lay in the insight that slavery
could survive only if the capitalist world markets were destroyed. Such views greatly
alarmed northerners like Abraham Lincoln. Significantly, Fitzhugh opposed secession,
arguing that a slaveholding Confederacy could not survive until the advanced capitalist
countries (Europe) had themselves converted to a slave system. Economically, according
to Fitzhugh, slave labor could not compete with wage labor.
Liberty and equality are new things under the sun. The free states of antiquity abounded
with slaves. The feudal system that supplanted Roman institutions changed the form of
slavery, but brought with it neither liberty nor equality. France and the Northern States of
our Union have alone fully and fairly tried the experiment of a social organization
founded upon universal liberty and equality of rights. England has only approximated to
this condition in her commercial and manufacturing cities. The examples of small
communities in Europe are not fit exponents of the working of the system. In France and
in our Northern States the experiment has already failed, if we are to form our opinions
from the discontent of the masses, or to believe the evidence of the Socialists,
Communists, Anti-Renters, and a thousand other agrarian sects that have arisen in these
countries, and threaten to subvert the whole social fabric. The leaders of these sects, at
least in France, comprise within their ranks the greater number of the most cultivated and
profound minds in the nation, who have made government their study. Add to the
evidence of these social philosophers, who, watching closely the working of the system,
have proclaimed to the world its total failure, the condition of the working classes, and
we have conclusive proof that liberty and equality have not conduced to enhance the
comfort or the happiness of the people. Crime and pauperism have increased. Riots,
trades unions, strikes for higher wages, discontent breaking out into revolution, are things
of daily occurrence, and show that the poor see and feel quite as clearly as the
philosophers, that their condition is far worse under the new than under the old order of
things. Radicalism and Chartism in England owe their birth to the free and equal
institutions of her commercial and manufacturing districts, and are little heard of in the
quiet farming districts, where remnants of feudalism sill exist in the relation of landlord
and tenant, and in the laws of entail and primogeniture.
So much for experiment. We will now endeavor to treat the subject theoretically, and to
show that the system is on its face self-destructive and impracticable. When we look at
the vegetable, animal and human kingdoms, we discover in them all a constant conflict,
war, or race of competition, the result of which is, that the weaker or less healthy genera,
species and individuals are continually displaced and exterminated by the stronger and
more hardy. It is a means by which some contend Nature is perfecting her own work. We,
however, witness the war, but do not see the improvement. Although from the earliest
date of recorded history, one race of plants has been eating out and taking the place of
another, the stronger or more cunning animals been destroying the feebler, and man
exterminating and supplanting his fellow, still the plants, the animals and the men of to-
day seem not at all superior, even in those qualities of strength and hardihood to which
they owe their continued existence, to those of thousands of years ago. To this propensity
of the strong to oppress and destroy the weak, government owes its existence. So strong
is this propensity, and so destructive to human existence, that man has never yet been
found so savage as to be without government. Forgetful of this important fact, which is
the origin of all governments, the political economists and the advocates of liberty and
equality propose to enhance the well being of man by trammeling his conduct as little as
possible, and encouraging what they call FREE COMPETITION. Now, free competition
is but another name for liberty and equality, and we must acquire precise and accurate
notions about it in order to ascertain how free institutions will work. It is, then, the war or
conflict to which Nature impels her creatures, and which government was intended to
restrict. It is true, it is that war somewhat modified and restricted, for the warmest friends
of freedom would have some government. The question is, whether the proposed
restrictions are sufficient to neutralize the self-destructive tendencies which nature
impresses on society. We proceed to show that the war of the wits, of mind with mind,
which free competition or liberty and equality beget and encourage, is quite as
oppressive, cruel and exterminating, as the war of the sword, of theft, robbery, and
murder, which it forbids. It is only substituting strength of mind for strength of body.
Men are told it is their duty to compete, to endeavor to get ahead of and supplant their
fellow men, by the exercise of all the intellectual and moral strength with which nature
and education have endowed them. “Might makes right,” is the order of creation, and this
law of nature, so far as mental might is concerned, is restored by liberty to man. The
struggle to better one’s condition, to pull others down or supplant them, is the great
organic law of free society. All men being equal, all aspire to the highest honors and the
largest possessions. Good men and bad men teach their children one and the same lesson
– “Go ahead, push your way in the world.” In such society, virtue, if virtue there be, loses
all her loveliness because of her selfish aims. None but the selfish virtues are encouraged,
because none other aid a man in the race of free competition. Good men and bad men
have the same end in view, are in pursuit of the same object – self-promotion, self-
elevation. The good man is prudent, cautious, and cunning of fence; he knows well the
arts (the virtues, if you please,) which will advance his fortunes and enable him to press
and supplant others; he bides his time, takes advantage of the follies, the improvidence,
and vices of others, and makes his fortune out of the misfortunes of his fellow men. The
bad man is rash, hasty, and unskillful. He is equally selfish, but not half so cunning.
Selfishness is almost the only motive of human conduct with good and bad in free
society, where every man is taught that he may change and better his condition. A vulgar
adage, “Every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost,” is the moral which liberty
and free competition inculcate. Now, there are no more honors and wealth in proportion
to numbers, in this generation, than in the one which preceded it; population fully keeps
pace with the means of subsistence; hence, those who better their condition or rise to
higher places in society, do so generally by pulling down others or pushing them from
their places. Where men of strong minds, of strong wills, and of great self-control, come
into free competition with the weak and improvident, the latter soon become the inmates
of jails and penitentiaries.
The statistics of France, England and America show that pauperism and crime advance
pari passu with liberty and equality. How can it be otherwise, when all society is
combined to oppress the poor and weak minded? The rich man, however good he may be,
employs the laborer who will work for the least wages. If he be a good man, his
punctuality enables him to cheapen the wages of the poor man. The poor war with one
another in the race of competition, in order to get employment, by underbidding; for
laborers are more abundant than employers. Population increases faster than capital.
Look to the situation of woman when she is thrown into this war of competition, and has
to support herself by her daily wages. For the same or equally valuable services she gets
not half the pay that man does, simply because the modesty of her sex prevents her from
resorting to all the arts and means of competition which men employ. He who would
emancipate woman, unless he could make her as coarse and strong in mind and body as
man, would be her worst enemy; her subservience to and dependence on man, is
necessary to her very existence. She is not a soldier fitted to enlist in the war of free
competition. We do not set children and women free because they are not capable of
taking care of themselves, not equal to the constant struggle of society. To set them free
would be to give the lamb to the wolf to take care of. Society would quickly devour them.
If the children of ten years of age were remitted to all the rights of person and property
which men enjoy, all can perceive how soon ruin and penury would overtake them. But
half of mankind are but grown-up children, and liberty is as fatal to them as it would be
to children.
We will cite another familiar instance to prove and illustrate the destructive effects of
liberty or free competition. It is that where two races of men of different capacity are
brought into juxtaposition. It is the boast of the Anglo-Saxon, that by the arts of peace
under the influence of free trade he can march to universal conquest. However true this
may be, all know that if Englishmen or Americans settle among inferior races, they soon
become the owners of the soil, and gradually extirpate or reduce to poverty the original
owners. They are the wire-grass of nations. The same law of nature which enables and
impels the stronger race to oppress and exterminate the weaker, is constantly at work in
the bosom of every society, between its stronger and weaker members. Liberty and
equality rather encourage than restrict this law in its deadly operation. A Northern
gentleman, who was both statesman and philosopher, once told us, that his only objection
to domestic slavery was, that it would perpetuate an inferior race, who, under the
influence of free trade and free competition would otherwise disappear from the earth.
Domestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the
character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his
sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner,
in every thing but the arts of thrift. …
But the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of
the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all
property in common, but to divide the profits not according to each man’s in-put and
labor but according to each man’s wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic
slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in
health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The master’s wants are
most costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern
farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes
more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the
concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master
to participate in the profits of another concern; he marries when he pleases, because he
knows he will have to work no more with a family than without one, and whether he live
or die, that family will be taken care of; he exhibits all the pride of ownership, despises a
partner in a smaller concern, “a poor man’s negro,” boasts of “our crops, horses, fields
and cattle;” and is as happy as a human being can be. And why should he not? – he
enjoys as much of the fruits of the farm as he is capable of doing, and the wealthiest can
do no more. Great wealth brings many additional cares, but few additional enjoyments.
Our stomachs do not increase in capacity with our fortunes. We want no more clothing to
keep us warm. We may create new wants, but we cannot create new pleasures. The
intellectual enjoyments which wealth affords are probably balanced by the new cares it
brings along with it.
There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free
laborers. Nor is there a war between master and slave. The master’s interest prevents his
reducing the slave’s allowance or wages in infancy or sickness, for he might lose the
slave by so doing. His feeling for his slave never permits him to stint him in old age. The
slaves are all well fed, well clad, have plenty of fuel, and are happy. They have no dread
of the future – no fear of want. A state of dependence is the only condition in which
reciprocal affection can exist among human beings – the only situation in which the war
of competition ceases, and peace, amity and good will arise. A state of independence
always begets more or less of jealous rivalry and hostility. A man loves his children
because they are weak, helpless and dependent; he loves his wife for similar reasons.
When his children grow up and assert their independence, he is apt to transfer his
affection to his grand-children. He ceases to love his wife when she becomes masculine
or rebellious; but slaves are always dependent, never the rivals of their master. Hence,
though men are often found at variance with wife or children, we never saw one who did
not like his slaves, and rarely a slave who was not devoted to his master. “I am thy
servant!” disarms me of the power of master. Every man feels the beauty, force and truth
of this sentiment of Sterne. But he who acknowledges its truth, tacitly admits that
dependence is a tie of affection, that the relation of master and slave is one of mutual
good will. Volumes written on the subject would not prove as much as this single
sentiment. It has found its way to the heart of every reader, and carried conviction along
with it. The slave-holder is like other men; he will not tread on the worm nor break the
bruised reed. The ready submission of the slave, nine times out of ten, disarms his wrath
even when the slave has offended. The habit of command may make him imperious and
fit him for rule; but he is only imperious when thwarted or crossed by his equals; he
would scorn to put on airs of command among blacks, whether slaves or free; he always
speaks to them in a kind and subdued tone. We go farther, and say the slave-holder is
better than others – because he has greater occasion for the exercise of the affections. His
whole life is spent in providing for the minutest wants of others, in taking care of them in
sickness and in health. Hence he is the least selfish of men. Is not the old bachelor who
retires to seclusion, always selfish? Is not the head of a large family almost always kind
and benevolent? And is not the slave-holder the head of the largest family? Nature
compels master and slave to be friends; nature makes employers and free laborers
enemies.”
**## george-fitzhugh_slavery-justified.pdf**
George Fitzhugh, Slavery Justified (1854)
Fitzhugh was the descendant of an old southern family that had fallen on hard times. He
practiced law and struggled as a small planter, but he ultimately made a reputation
through his writings, which roused southerners to take a new and higher ground in
defense of slavery. Fitzhugh insisted that all labor, not merely black, had to be enslaved,
and that the world must become either all slave or all free. These views had become
commonplace in the South by the 1850s, but his originality lay in the insight that slavery
could survive only if the capitalist world markets were destroyed. Such views greatly
alarmed northerners like Abraham Lincoln. Significantly, Fitzhugh opposed secession,
arguing that a slaveholding Confederacy could not survive until the advanced capitalist
countries (Europe) had themselves converted to a slave system. Economically, according
to Fitzhugh, slave labor could not compete with wage labor.
Liberty and equality are new things under the sun. The free states of antiquity abounded
with slaves. The feudal system that supplanted Roman institutions changed the form of
slavery, but brought with it neither liberty nor equality. France and the Northern States of
our Union have alone fully and fairly tried the experiment of a social organization
founded upon universal liberty and equality of rights. England has only approximated to
this condition in her commercial and manufacturing cities. The examples of small
communities in Europe are not fit exponents of the working of the system. In France and
in our Northern States the experiment has already failed, if we are to form our opinions
from the discontent of the masses, or to believe the evidence of the Socialists,
Communists, Anti-Renters, and a thousand other agrarian sects that have arisen in these
countries, and threaten to subvert the whole social fabric. The leaders of these sects, at
least in France, comprise within their ranks the greater number of the most cultivated and
profound minds in the nation, who have made government their study. Add to the
evidence of these social philosophers, who, watching closely the working of the system,
have proclaimed to the world its total failure, the condition of the working classes, and
we have conclusive proof that liberty and equality have not conduced to enhance the
comfort or the happiness of the people. Crime and pauperism have increased. Riots,
trades unions, strikes for higher wages, discontent breaking out into revolution, are things
of daily occurrence, and show that the poor see and feel quite as clearly as the
philosophers, that their condition is far worse under the new than under the old order of
things. Radicalism and Chartism in England owe their birth to the free and equal
institutions of her commercial and manufacturing districts, and are little heard of in the
quiet farming districts, where remnants of feudalism sill exist in the relation of landlord
and tenant, and in the laws of entail and primogeniture.
So much for experiment. We will now endeavor to treat the subject theoretically, and to
show that the system is on its face self-destructive and impracticable. When we look at
the vegetable, animal and human kingdoms, we discover in them all a constant conflict,
war, or race of competition, the result of which is, that the weaker or less healthy genera,
species and individuals are continually displaced and exterminated by the stronger and
more hardy. It is a means by which some contend Nature is perfecting her own work. We,
however, witness the war, but do not see the improvement. Although from the earliest
date of recorded history, one race of plants has been eating out and taking the place of
another, the stronger or more cunning animals been destroying the feebler, and man
exterminating and supplanting his fellow, still the plants, the animals and the men of to-
day seem not at all superior, even in those qualities of strength and hardihood to which
they owe their continued existence, to those of thousands of years ago. To this propensity
of the strong to oppress and destroy the weak, government owes its existence. So strong
is this propensity, and so destructive to human existence, that man has never yet been
found so savage as to be without government. Forgetful of this important fact, which is
the origin of all governments, the political economists and the advocates of liberty and
equality propose to enhance the well being of man by trammeling his conduct as little as
possible, and encouraging what they call FREE COMPETITION. Now, free competition
is but another name for liberty and equality, and we must acquire precise and accurate
notions about it in order to ascertain how free institutions will work. It is, then, the war or
conflict to which Nature impels her creatures, and which government was intended to
restrict. It is true, it is that war somewhat modified and restricted, for the warmest friends
of freedom would have some government. The question is, whether the proposed
restrictions are sufficient to neutralize the self-destructive tendencies which nature
impresses on society. We proceed to show that the war of the wits, of mind with mind,
which free competition or liberty and equality beget and encourage, is quite as
oppressive, cruel and exterminating, as the war of the sword, of theft, robbery, and
murder, which it forbids. It is only substituting strength of mind for strength of body.
Men are told it is their duty to compete, to endeavor to get ahead of and supplant their
fellow men, by the exercise of all the intellectual and moral strength with which nature
and education have endowed them. “Might makes right,” is the order of creation, and this
law of nature, so far as mental might is concerned, is restored by liberty to man. The
struggle to better one’s condition, to pull others down or supplant them, is the great
organic law of free society. All men being equal, all aspire to the highest honors and the
largest possessions. Good men and bad men teach their children one and the same lesson
– “Go ahead, push your way in the world.” In such society, virtue, if virtue there be, loses
all her loveliness because of her selfish aims. None but the selfish virtues are encouraged,
because none other aid a man in the race of free competition. Good men and bad men
have the same end in view, are in pursuit of the same object – self-promotion, self-
elevation. The good man is prudent, cautious, and cunning of fence; he knows well the
arts (the virtues, if you please,) which will advance his fortunes and enable him to press
and supplant others; he bides his time, takes advantage of the follies, the improvidence,
and vices of others, and makes his fortune out of the misfortunes of his fellow men. The
bad man is rash, hasty, and unskillful. He is equally selfish, but not half so cunning.
Selfishness is almost the only motive of human conduct with good and bad in free
society, where every man is taught that he may change and better his condition. A vulgar
adage, “Every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost,” is the moral which liberty
and free competition inculcate. Now, there are no more honors and wealth in proportion
to numbers, in this generation, than in the one which preceded it; population fully keeps
pace with the means of subsistence; hence, those who better their condition or rise to
higher places in society, do so generally by pulling down others or pushing them from
their places. Where men of strong minds, of strong wills, and of great self-control, come
into free competition with the weak and improvident, the latter soon become the inmates
of jails and penitentiaries.
The statistics of France, England and America show that pauperism and crime advance
pari passu with liberty and equality. How can it be otherwise, when all society is
combined to oppress the poor and weak minded? The rich man, however good he may be,
employs the laborer who will work for the least wages. If he be a good man, his
punctuality enables him to cheapen the wages of the poor man. The poor war with one
another in the race of competition, in order to get employment, by underbidding; for
laborers are more abundant than employers. Population increases faster than capital.
Look to the situation of woman when she is thrown into this war of competition, and has
to support herself by her daily wages. For the same or equally valuable services she gets
not half the pay that man does, simply because the modesty of her sex prevents her from
resorting to all the arts and means of competition which men employ. He who would
emancipate woman, unless he could make her as coarse and strong in mind and body as
man, would be her worst enemy; her subservience to and dependence on man, is
necessary to her very existence. She is not a soldier fitted to enlist in the war of free
competition. We do not set children and women free because they are not capable of
taking care of themselves, not equal to the constant struggle of society. To set them free
would be to give the lamb to the wolf to take care of. Society would quickly devour them.
If the children of ten years of age were remitted to all the rights of person and property
which men enjoy, all can perceive how soon ruin and penury would overtake them. But
half of mankind are but grown-up children, and liberty is as fatal to them as it would be
to children.
We will cite another familiar instance to prove and illustrate the destructive effects of
liberty or free competition. It is that where two races of men of different capacity are
brought into juxtaposition. It is the boast of the Anglo-Saxon, that by the arts of peace
under the influence of free trade he can march to universal conquest. However true this
may be, all know that if Englishmen or Americans settle among inferior races, they soon
become the owners of the soil, and gradually extirpate or reduce to poverty the original
owners. They are the wire-grass of nations. The same law of nature which enables and
impels the stronger race to oppress and exterminate the weaker, is constantly at work in
the bosom of every society, between its stronger and weaker members. Liberty and
equality rather encourage than restrict this law in its deadly operation. A Northern
gentleman, who was both statesman and philosopher, once told us, that his only objection
to domestic slavery was, that it would perpetuate an inferior race, who, under the
influence of free trade and free competition would otherwise disappear from the earth.
Domestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the
character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his
sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner,
in every thing but the arts of thrift. …
But the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of
the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all
property in common, but to divide the profits not according to each man’s in-put and
labor but according to each man’s wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic
slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in
health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The master’s wants are
most costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern
farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes
more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the
concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master
to participate in the profits of another concern; he marries when he pleases, because he
knows he will have to work no more with a family than without one, and whether he live
or die, that family will be taken care of; he exhibits all the pride of ownership, despises a
partner in a smaller concern, “a poor man’s negro,” boasts of “our crops, horses, fields
and cattle;” and is as happy as a human being can be. And why should he not? – he
enjoys as much of the fruits of the farm as he is capable of doing, and the wealthiest can
do no more. Great wealth brings many additional cares, but few additional enjoyments.
Our stomachs do not increase in capacity with our fortunes. We want no more clothing to
keep us warm. We may create new wants, but we cannot create new pleasures. The
intellectual enjoyments which wealth affords are probably balanced by the new cares it
brings along with it.
There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free
laborers. Nor is there a war between master and slave. The master’s interest prevents his
reducing the slave’s allowance or wages in infancy or sickness, for he might lose the
slave by so doing. His feeling for his slave never permits him to stint him in old age. The
slaves are all well fed, well clad, have plenty of fuel, and are happy. They have no dread
of the future – no fear of want. A state of dependence is the only condition in which
reciprocal affection can exist among human beings – the only situation in which the war
of competition ceases, and peace, amity and good will arise. A state of independence
always begets more or less of jealous rivalry and hostility. A man loves his children
because they are weak, helpless and dependent; he loves his wife for similar reasons.
When his children grow up and assert their independence, he is apt to transfer his
affection to his grand-children. He ceases to love his wife when she becomes masculine
or rebellious; but slaves are always dependent, never the rivals of their master. Hence,
though men are often found at variance with wife or children, we never saw one who did
not like his slaves, and rarely a slave who was not devoted to his master. “I am thy
servant!” disarms me of the power of master. Every man feels the beauty, force and truth
of this sentiment of Sterne. But he who acknowledges its truth, tacitly admits that
dependence is a tie of affection, that the relation of master and slave is one of mutual
good will. Volumes written on the subject would not prove as much as this single
sentiment. It has found its way to the heart of every reader, and carried conviction along
with it. The slave-holder is like other men; he will not tread on the worm nor break the
bruised reed. The ready submission of the slave, nine times out of ten, disarms his wrath
even when the slave has offended. The habit of command may make him imperious and
fit him for rule; but he is only imperious when thwarted or crossed by his equals; he
would scorn to put on airs of command among blacks, whether slaves or free; he always
speaks to them in a kind and subdued tone. We go farther, and say the slave-holder is
better than others – because he has greater occasion for the exercise of the affections. His
whole life is spent in providing for the minutest wants of others, in taking care of them in
sickness and in health. Hence he is the least selfish of men. Is not the old bachelor who
retires to seclusion, always selfish? Is not the head of a large family almost always kind
and benevolent? And is not the slave-holder the head of the largest family? Nature
compels master and slave to be friends; nature makes employers and free laborers
enemies.”
**## Option3.docx**
Option 3: Fitzhugh Journal Assignment
Part 1: Write 100 words on places where you agree with Fitzhugh.
Part 2: Write 100 words on places where you disagree with Fitzhugh.
Part 3: Write 100 words about how this essay made you feel.
**## george-fitzhugh_slavery-justified.pdf**
George Fitzhugh, Slavery Justified (1854)
Fitzhugh was the descendant of an old southern family that had fallen on hard times. He
practiced law and struggled as a small planter, but he ultimately made a reputation
through his writings, which roused southerners to take a new and higher ground in
defense of slavery. Fitzhugh insisted that all labor, not merely black, had to be enslaved,
and that the world must become either all slave or all free. These views had become
commonplace in the South by the 1850s, but his originality lay in the insight that slavery
could survive only if the capitalist world markets were destroyed. Such views greatly
alarmed northerners like Abraham Lincoln. Significantly, Fitzhugh opposed secession,
arguing that a slaveholding Confederacy could not survive until the advanced capitalist
countries (Europe) had themselves converted to a slave system. Economically, according
to Fitzhugh, slave labor could not compete with wage labor.
Liberty and equality are new things under the sun. The free states of antiquity abounded
with slaves. The feudal system that supplanted Roman institutions changed the form of
slavery, but brought with it neither liberty nor equality. France and the Northern States of
our Union have alone fully and fairly tried the experiment of a social organization
founded upon universal liberty and equality of rights. England has only approximated to
this condition in her commercial and manufacturing cities. The examples of small
communities in Europe are not fit exponents of the working of the system. In France and
in our Northern States the experiment has already failed, if we are to form our opinions
from the discontent of the masses, or to believe the evidence of the Socialists,
Communists, Anti-Renters, and a thousand other agrarian sects that have arisen in these
countries, and threaten to subvert the whole social fabric. The leaders of these sects, at
least in France, comprise within their ranks the greater number of the most cultivated and
profound minds in the nation, who have made government their study. Add to the
evidence of these social philosophers, who, watching closely the working of the system,
have proclaimed to the world its total failure, the condition of the working classes, and
we have conclusive proof that liberty and equality have not conduced to enhance the
comfort or the happiness of the people. Crime and pauperism have increased. Riots,
trades unions, strikes for higher wages, discontent breaking out into revolution, are things
of daily occurrence, and show that the poor see and feel quite as clearly as the
philosophers, that their condition is far worse under the new than under the old order of
things. Radicalism and Chartism in England owe their birth to the free and equal
institutions of her commercial and manufacturing districts, and are little heard of in the
quiet farming districts, where remnants of feudalism sill exist in the relation of landlord
and tenant, and in the laws of entail and primogeniture.
So much for experiment. We will now endeavor to treat the subject theoretically, and to
show that the system is on its face self-destructive and impracticable. When we look at
the vegetable, animal and human kingdoms, we discover in them all a constant conflict,
war, or race of competition, the result of which is, that the weaker or less healthy genera,
species and individuals are continually displaced and exterminated by the stronger and
more hardy. It is a means by which some contend Nature is perfecting her own work. We,
however, witness the war, but do not see the improvement. Although from the earliest
date of recorded history, one race of plants has been eating out and taking the place of
another, the stronger or more cunning animals been destroying the feebler, and man
exterminating and supplanting his fellow, still the plants, the animals and the men of to-
day seem not at all superior, even in those qualities of strength and hardihood to which
they owe their continued existence, to those of thousands of years ago. To this propensity
of the strong to oppress and destroy the weak, government owes its existence. So strong
is this propensity, and so destructive to human existence, that man has never yet been
found so savage as to be without government. Forgetful of this important fact, which is
the origin of all governments, the political economists and the advocates of liberty and
equality propose to enhance the well being of man by trammeling his conduct as little as
possible, and encouraging what they call FREE COMPETITION. Now, free competition
is but another name for liberty and equality, and we must acquire precise and accurate
notions about it in order to ascertain how free institutions will work. It is, then, the war or
conflict to which Nature impels her creatures, and which government was intended to
restrict. It is true, it is that war somewhat modified and restricted, for the warmest friends
of freedom would have some government. The question is, whether the proposed
restrictions are sufficient to neutralize the self-destructive tendencies which nature
impresses on society. We proceed to show that the war of the wits, of mind with mind,
which free competition or liberty and equality beget and encourage, is quite as
oppressive, cruel and exterminating, as the war of the sword, of theft, robbery, and
murder, which it forbids. It is only substituting strength of mind for strength of body.
Men are told it is their duty to compete, to endeavor to get ahead of and supplant their
fellow men, by the exercise of all the intellectual and moral strength with which nature
and education have endowed them. “Might makes right,” is the order of creation, and this
law of nature, so far as mental might is concerned, is restored by liberty to man. The
struggle to better one’s condition, to pull others down or supplant them, is the great
organic law of free society. All men being equal, all aspire to the highest honors and the
largest possessions. Good men and bad men teach their children one and the same lesson
– “Go ahead, push your way in the world.” In such society, virtue, if virtue there be, loses
all her loveliness because of her selfish aims. None but the selfish virtues are encouraged,
because none other aid a man in the race of free competition. Good men and bad men
have the same end in view, are in pursuit of the same object – self-promotion, self-
elevation. The good man is prudent, cautious, and cunning of fence; he knows well the
arts (the virtues, if you please,) which will advance his fortunes and enable him to press
and supplant others; he bides his time, takes advantage of the follies, the improvidence,
and vices of others, and makes his fortune out of the misfortunes of his fellow men. The
bad man is rash, hasty, and unskillful. He is equally selfish, but not half so cunning.
Selfishness is almost the only motive of human conduct with good and bad in free
society, where every man is taught that he may change and better his condition. A vulgar
adage, “Every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost,” is the moral which liberty
and free competition inculcate. Now, there are no more honors and wealth in proportion
to numbers, in this generation, than in the one which preceded it; population fully keeps
pace with the means of subsistence; hence, those who better their condition or rise to
higher places in society, do so generally by pulling down others or pushing them from
their places. Where men of strong minds, of strong wills, and of great self-control, come
into free competition with the weak and improvident, the latter soon become the inmates
of jails and penitentiaries.
The statistics of France, England and America show that pauperism and crime advance
pari passu with liberty and equality. How can it be otherwise, when all society is
combined to oppress the poor and weak minded? The rich man, however good he may be,
employs the laborer who will work for the least wages. If he be a good man, his
punctuality enables him to cheapen the wages of the poor man. The poor war with one
another in the race of competition, in order to get employment, by underbidding; for
laborers are more abundant than employers. Population increases faster than capital.
Look to the situation of woman when she is thrown into this war of competition, and has
to support herself by her daily wages. For the same or equally valuable services she gets
not half the pay that man does, simply because the modesty of her sex prevents her from
resorting to all the arts and means of competition which men employ. He who would
emancipate woman, unless he could make her as coarse and strong in mind and body as
man, would be her worst enemy; her subservience to and dependence on man, is
necessary to her very existence. She is not a soldier fitted to enlist in the war of free
competition. We do not set children and women free because they are not capable of
taking care of themselves, not equal to the constant struggle of society. To set them free
would be to give the lamb to the wolf to take care of. Society would quickly devour them.
If the children of ten years of age were remitted to all the rights of person and property
which men enjoy, all can perceive how soon ruin and penury would overtake them. But
half of mankind are but grown-up children, and liberty is as fatal to them as it would be
to children.
We will cite another familiar instance to prove and illustrate the destructive effects of
liberty or free competition. It is that where two races of men of different capacity are
brought into juxtaposition. It is the boast of the Anglo-Saxon, that by the arts of peace
under the influence of free trade he can march to universal conquest. However true this
may be, all know that if Englishmen or Americans settle among inferior races, they soon
become the owners of the soil, and gradually extirpate or reduce to poverty the original
owners. They are the wire-grass of nations. The same law of nature which enables and
impels the stronger race to oppress and exterminate the weaker, is constantly at work in
the bosom of every society, between its stronger and weaker members. Liberty and
equality rather encourage than restrict this law in its deadly operation. A Northern
gentleman, who was both statesman and philosopher, once told us, that his only objection
to domestic slavery was, that it would perpetuate an inferior race, who, under the
influence of free trade and free competition would otherwise disappear from the earth.
Domestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the
character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his
sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner,
in every thing but the arts of thrift. …
But the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of
the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all
property in common, but to divide the profits not according to each man’s in-put and
labor but according to each man’s wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic
slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in
health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The master’s wants are
most costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern
farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes
more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the
concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master
to participate in the profits of another concern; he marries when he pleases, because he
knows he will have to work no more with a family than without one, and whether he live
or die, that family will be taken care of; he exhibits all the pride of ownership, despises a
partner in a smaller concern, “a poor man’s negro,” boasts of “our crops, horses, fields
and cattle;” and is as happy as a human being can be. And why should he not? – he
enjoys as much of the fruits of the farm as he is capable of doing, and the wealthiest can
do no more. Great wealth brings many additional cares, but few additional enjoyments.
Our stomachs do not increase in capacity with our fortunes. We want no more clothing to
keep us warm. We may create new wants, but we cannot create new pleasures. The
intellectual enjoyments which wealth affords are probably balanced by the new cares it
brings along with it.
There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free
laborers. Nor is there a war between master and slave. The master’s interest prevents his
reducing the slave’s allowance or wages in infancy or sickness, for he might lose the
slave by so doing. His feeling for his slave never permits him to stint him in old age. The
slaves are all well fed, well clad, have plenty of fuel, and are happy. They have no dread
of the future – no fear of want. A state of dependence is the only condition in which
reciprocal affection can exist among human beings – the only situation in which the war
of competition ceases, and peace, amity and good will arise. A state of independence
always begets more or less of jealous rivalry and hostility. A man loves his children
because they are weak, helpless and dependent; he loves his wife for similar reasons.
When his children grow up and assert their independence, he is apt to transfer his
affection to his grand-children. He ceases to love his wife when she becomes masculine
or rebellious; but slaves are always dependent, never the rivals of their master. Hence,
though men are often found at variance with wife or children, we never saw one who did
not like his slaves, and rarely a slave who was not devoted to his master. “I am thy
servant!” disarms me of the power of master. Every man feels the beauty, force and truth
of this sentiment of Sterne. But he who acknowledges its truth, tacitly admits that
dependence is a tie of affection, that the relation of master and slave is one of mutual
good will. Volumes written on the subject would not prove as much as this single
sentiment. It has found its way to the heart of every reader, and carried conviction along
with it. The slave-holder is like other men; he will not tread on the worm nor break the
bruised reed. The ready submission of the slave, nine times out of ten, disarms his wrath
even when the slave has offended. The habit of command may make him imperious and
fit him for rule; but he is only imperious when thwarted or crossed by his equals; he
would scorn to put on airs of command among blacks, whether slaves or free; he always
speaks to them in a kind and subdued tone. We go farther, and say the slave-holder is
better than others – because he has greater occasion for the exercise of the affections. His
whole life is spent in providing for the minutest wants of others, in taking care of them in
sickness and in health. Hence he is the least selfish of men. Is not the old bachelor who
retires to seclusion, always selfish? Is not the head of a large family almost always kind
and benevolent? And is not the slave-holder the head of the largest family? Nature
compels master and slave to be friends; nature makes employers and free laborers
enemies.”
**## Option3.docx**
Option 3: Fitzhugh Journal Assignment
Part 1: Write 100 words on places where you agree with Fitzhugh.
Part 2: Write 100 words on places where you disagree with Fitzhugh.
Part 3: Write 100 words about how this essay made you feel.
**## george-fitzhugh_slavery-justified.pdf**
George Fitzhugh, Slavery Justified (1854)
Fitzhugh was the descendant of an old southern family that had fallen on hard times. He
practiced law and struggled as a small planter, but he ultimately made a reputation
through his writings, which roused southerners to take a new and higher ground in
defense of slavery. Fitzhugh insisted that all labor, not merely black, had to be enslaved,
and that the world must become either all slave or all free. These views had become
commonplace in the South by the 1850s, but his originality lay in the insight that slavery
could survive only if the capitalist world markets were destroyed. Such views greatly
alarmed northerners like Abraham Lincoln. Significantly, Fitzhugh opposed secession,
arguing that a slaveholding Confederacy could not survive until the advanced capitalist
countries (Europe) had themselves converted to a slave system. Economically, according
to Fitzhugh, slave labor could not compete with wage labor.
Liberty and equality are new things under the sun. The free states of antiquity abounded
with slaves. The feudal system that supplanted Roman institutions changed the form of
slavery, but brought with it neither liberty nor equality. France and the Northern States of
our Union have alone fully and fairly tried the experiment of a social organization
founded upon universal liberty and equality of rights. England has only approximated to
this condition in her commercial and manufacturing cities. The examples of small
communities in Europe are not fit exponents of the working of the system. In France and
in our Northern States the experiment has already failed, if we are to form our opinions
from the discontent of the masses, or to believe the evidence of the Socialists,
Communists, Anti-Renters, and a thousand other agrarian sects that have arisen in these
countries, and threaten to subvert the whole social fabric. The leaders of these sects, at
least in France, comprise within their ranks the greater number of the most cultivated and
profound minds in the nation, who have made government their study. Add to the
evidence of these social philosophers, who, watching closely the working of the system,
have proclaimed to the world its total failure, the condition of the working classes, and
we have conclusive proof that liberty and equality have not conduced to enhance the
comfort or the happiness of the people. Crime and pauperism have increased. Riots,
trades unions, strikes for higher wages, discontent breaking out into revolution, are things
of daily occurrence, and show that the poor see and feel quite as clearly as the
philosophers, that their condition is far worse under the new than under the old order of
things. Radicalism and Chartism in England owe their birth to the free and equal
institutions of her commercial and manufacturing districts, and are little heard of in the
quiet farming districts, where remnants of feudalism sill exist in the relation of landlord
and tenant, and in the laws of entail and primogeniture.
So much for experiment. We will now endeavor to treat the subject theoretically, and to
show that the system is on its face self-destructive and impracticable. When we look at
the vegetable, animal and human kingdoms, we discover in them all a constant conflict,
war, or race of competition, the result of which is, that the weaker or less healthy genera,
species and individuals are continually displaced and exterminated by the stronger and
more hardy. It is a means by which some contend Nature is perfecting her own work. We,
however, witness the war, but do not see the improvement. Although from the earliest
date of recorded history, one race of plants has been eating out and taking the place of
another, the stronger or more cunning animals been destroying the feebler, and man
exterminating and supplanting his fellow, still the plants, the animals and the men of to-
day seem not at all superior, even in those qualities of strength and hardihood to which
they owe their continued existence, to those of thousands of years ago. To this propensity
of the strong to oppress and destroy the weak, government owes its existence. So strong
is this propensity, and so destructive to human existence, that man has never yet been
found so savage as to be without government. Forgetful of this important fact, which is
the origin of all governments, the political economists and the advocates of liberty and
equality propose to enhance the well being of man by trammeling his conduct as little as
possible, and encouraging what they call FREE COMPETITION. Now, free competition
is but another name for liberty and equality, and we must acquire precise and accurate
notions about it in order to ascertain how free institutions will work. It is, then, the war or
conflict to which Nature impels her creatures, and which government was intended to
restrict. It is true, it is that war somewhat modified and restricted, for the warmest friends
of freedom would have some government. The question is, whether the proposed
restrictions are sufficient to neutralize the self-destructive tendencies which nature
impresses on society. We proceed to show that the war of the wits, of mind with mind,
which free competition or liberty and equality beget and encourage, is quite as
oppressive, cruel and exterminating, as the war of the sword, of theft, robbery, and
murder, which it forbids. It is only substituting strength of mind for strength of body.
Men are told it is their duty to compete, to endeavor to get ahead of and supplant their
fellow men, by the exercise of all the intellectual and moral strength with which nature
and education have endowed them. “Might makes right,” is the order of creation, and this
law of nature, so far as mental might is concerned, is restored by liberty to man. The
struggle to better one’s condition, to pull others down or supplant them, is the great
organic law of free society. All men being equal, all aspire to the highest honors and the
largest possessions. Good men and bad men teach their children one and the same lesson
– “Go ahead, push your way in the world.” In such society, virtue, if virtue there be, loses
all her loveliness because of her selfish aims. None but the selfish virtues are encouraged,
because none other aid a man in the race of free competition. Good men and bad men
have the same end in view, are in pursuit of the same object – self-promotion, self-
elevation. The good man is prudent, cautious, and cunning of fence; he knows well the
arts (the virtues, if you please,) which will advance his fortunes and enable him to press
and supplant others; he bides his time, takes advantage of the follies, the improvidence,
and vices of others, and makes his fortune out of the misfortunes of his fellow men. The
bad man is rash, hasty, and unskillful. He is equally selfish, but not half so cunning.
Selfishness is almost the only motive of human conduct with good and bad in free
society, where every man is taught that he may change and better his condition. A vulgar
adage, “Every man for himself, and devil take the hindmost,” is the moral which liberty
and free competition inculcate. Now, there are no more honors and wealth in proportion
to numbers, in this generation, than in the one which preceded it; population fully keeps
pace with the means of subsistence; hence, those who better their condition or rise to
higher places in society, do so generally by pulling down others or pushing them from
their places. Where men of strong minds, of strong wills, and of great self-control, come
into free competition with the weak and improvident, the latter soon become the inmates
of jails and penitentiaries.
The statistics of France, England and America show that pauperism and crime advance
pari passu with liberty and equality. How can it be otherwise, when all society is
combined to oppress the poor and weak minded? The rich man, however good he may be,
employs the laborer who will work for the least wages. If he be a good man, his
punctuality enables him to cheapen the wages of the poor man. The poor war with one
another in the race of competition, in order to get employment, by underbidding; for
laborers are more abundant than employers. Population increases faster than capital.
Look to the situation of woman when she is thrown into this war of competition, and has
to support herself by her daily wages. For the same or equally valuable services she gets
not half the pay that man does, simply because the modesty of her sex prevents her from
resorting to all the arts and means of competition which men employ. He who would
emancipate woman, unless he could make her as coarse and strong in mind and body as
man, would be her worst enemy; her subservience to and dependence on man, is
necessary to her very existence. She is not a soldier fitted to enlist in the war of free
competition. We do not set children and women free because they are not capable of
taking care of themselves, not equal to the constant struggle of society. To set them free
would be to give the lamb to the wolf to take care of. Society would quickly devour them.
If the children of ten years of age were remitted to all the rights of person and property
which men enjoy, all can perceive how soon ruin and penury would overtake them. But
half of mankind are but grown-up children, and liberty is as fatal to them as it would be
to children.
We will cite another familiar instance to prove and illustrate the destructive effects of
liberty or free competition. It is that where two races of men of different capacity are
brought into juxtaposition. It is the boast of the Anglo-Saxon, that by the arts of peace
under the influence of free trade he can march to universal conquest. However true this
may be, all know that if Englishmen or Americans settle among inferior races, they soon
become the owners of the soil, and gradually extirpate or reduce to poverty the original
owners. They are the wire-grass of nations. The same law of nature which enables and
impels the stronger race to oppress and exterminate the weaker, is constantly at work in
the bosom of every society, between its stronger and weaker members. Liberty and
equality rather encourage than restrict this law in its deadly operation. A Northern
gentleman, who was both statesman and philosopher, once told us, that his only objection
to domestic slavery was, that it would perpetuate an inferior race, who, under the
influence of free trade and free competition would otherwise disappear from the earth.
Domestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the
character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his
sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner,
in every thing but the arts of thrift. …
But the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of
the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all
property in common, but to divide the profits not according to each man’s in-put and
labor but according to each man’s wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic
slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in
health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The master’s wants are
most costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern
farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes
more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the
concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master
to participate in the profits of another concern; he marries when he pleases, because he
knows he will have to work no more with a family than without one, and whether he live
or die, that family will be taken care of; he exhibits all the pride of ownership, despises a
partner in a smaller concern, “a poor man’s negro,” boasts of “our crops, horses, fields
and cattle;” and is as happy as a human being can be. And why should he not? – he
enjoys as much of the fruits of the farm as he is capable of doing, and the wealthiest can
do no more. Great wealth brings many additional cares, but few additional enjoyments.
Our stomachs do not increase in capacity with our fortunes. We want no more clothing to
keep us warm. We may create new wants, but we cannot create new pleasures. The
intellectual enjoyments which wealth affords are probably balanced by the new cares it
brings along with it.
There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment among slaves, as among free
laborers. Nor is there a war between master and slave. The master’s interest prevents his
reducing the slave’s allowance or wages in infancy or sickness, for he might lose the
slave by so doing. His feeling for his slave never permits him to stint him in old age. The
slaves are all well fed, well clad, have plenty of fuel, and are happy. They have no dread
of the future – no fear of want. A state of dependence is the only condition in which
reciprocal affection can exist among human beings – the only situation in which the war
of competition ceases, and peace, amity and good will arise. A state of independence
always begets more or less of jealous rivalry and hostility. A man loves his children
because they are weak, helpless and dependent; he loves his wife for similar reasons.
When his children grow up and assert their independence, he is apt to transfer his
affection to his grand-children. He ceases to love his wife when she becomes masculine
or rebellious; but slaves are always dependent, never the rivals of their master. Hence,
though men are often found at variance with wife or children, we never saw one who did
not like his slaves, and rarely a slave who was not devoted to his master. “I am thy
servant!” disarms me of the power of master. Every man feels the beauty, force and truth
of this sentiment of Sterne. But he who acknowledges its truth, tacitly admits that
dependence is a tie of affection, that the relation of master and slave is one of mutual
good will. Volumes written on the subject would not prove as much as this single
sentiment. It has found its way to the heart of every reader, and carried conviction along
with it. The slave-holder is like other men; he will not tread on the worm nor break the
bruised reed. The ready submission of the slave, nine times out of ten, disarms his wrath
even when the slave has offended. The habit of command may make him imperious and
fit him for rule; but he is only imperious when thwarted or crossed by his equals; he
would scorn to put on airs of command among blacks, whether slaves or free; he always
speaks to them in a kind and subdued tone. We go farther, and say the slave-holder is
better than others – because he has greater occasion for the exercise of the affections. His
whole life is spent in providing for the minutest wants of others, in taking care of them in
sickness and in health. Hence he is the least selfish of men. Is not the old bachelor who
retires to seclusion, always selfish? Is not the head of a large family almost always kind
and benevolent? And is not the slave-holder the head of the largest family? Nature
compels master and slave to be friends; nature makes employers and free laborers
enemies.”
– 1
– 2