Advocates of Slavery

After reading "The Universal Law of Slavery," by George Fitzhugh and "The 'Mudsill' Theory," by James Henry Hammond I found that the points of view that these two advocates of slavery write from are completely ridiculous.  However, I do realize that this is largely due to the fact that I am reading these ideas in the 21st century.  I understand that if i was to read these during the 1800's, when slavery was part of the norm, my view on these writings could very well be the exact opposite of what they are now.  Nonetheless, I am from the 21'st century and therefore the statements they make about 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”.  The white masters speeking on behalf of the slaves were living in la la land thinking that everyone (white or black) loves the idea of slaves.  Although, if this were true then how does he explain the fact that anywhere from fourty to fifty thousand African American slaves had escaped and/or tried to escape from the South to the North or the fact that free blacks banned together in order to abolish slavery?  


George Fitzhugh verbally bashes the African American slaves by mentioning how “inferior” and “intellectually week” they are.  Fitzhugh continues to say that slaves would be lost without their white masters telling them what to do claiming that blacks would not stand a chance if given the right to free competition.  This is just ridiculous seeing as there is no way to possibly know that they would be unsuccessful.  Of course we know today this is untrue. Case in point Oprah Winfrey, a media giant in the United States who built her fortune from scratch, is one of the richest Americans.  Moreover, if the white settlers had gone to Africa as slaves the African slave holders would most likely 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 the country but for the themselves as well.  However, he does bring to light a very valid point 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 in reality its nature was just cloaked by more laws and legislation.  They had only given it the apperance of freedom by renaming and sugar coating it.


All things considered I do not agree with either Fitzhugh or Hammond.  There is always the fact that if one was to read or hear these writings during the times when slavery was an enormous part of life then they would most likely agree with both points of view.  However, we are lucky enough to realize that these statements are entirely false. 



Works Cited
United States. Cong. Senate. "The 'Mudsill' Theory," By James H. Hammond. S. Rept.     Web. 14 April 2012.

Fitzhugh, George. "The Universal Law of Slavery," by George Fitzhugh." Web. 14     April 2012. .

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

The U.S. Constitution and a Democratic Government

Did the U.S. Constitution define a democratic government?

      In 1787, the leaders of the of the revolution gathered together at a convention in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution of the United States.  It read, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." ("us.history.org")  The Constitution, written by fifty-five white men, signified America's birth as an independent country free from the British monarchy.  The constitution is said to define this new form of government as a democracy, however it treads very close to another form of government known as a republic.  

      Merriam Webster defines a democracy as: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." ("Merriam-Webster dictionary") In a democracy the majority dictates the minority, meaning 51% beats 49%.  The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.  

      On the other hand, a republic is defined as: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." ("Merriam-Webster dictionary")  In a republic only entitled citizens are allowed to vote in addition elected citizens are given the right to govern them.

      By looking at these two definitions it is clear that the Constitution does not define a democracy, rather a republic.  The citizens that were entitled to vote were white males. In the times following the revolution women were considered inferior along with black slaves while the Indians were not even part of the new Country (even though it was their land to begin with).  Also there were Senators, Governors, Congressmen... that helped pass the new laws and ruled/guided the people. 

 Is a democratic government possible in an economically polarized society?

      It is my belief that a democracy is more than possible in an economically polarized society, however it I do believe that it is highly unlikely.  Due to the fact that people by nature are greedy and want what they do not or can not have.  The answer to this question depends entirely on the society and the people that live in it.  If the citizens of the society were able to provide for themselves without the use of currency such as gold, bonds or a form of "federal reserve note" such as a dollar bill then yes democracy would work.  This is because of the fact that currency would only be needed to purchase luxuries such as cars and video games, while necessities such as food and water would be provided by the individuals own hand.  However, since the majority of people work for wages, which in turn is used to buy food from supermarkets, etc..., I believe that peoples greed for more wealth would cause chaos for a democratic government in a economically polarized society.  Again I believe that it is possible, although it is very unlikely.

1. "Multiple sclerosis." Merriam-Webster dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, 2012. Web. 6 Mar 2012. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/>.

2. us.history.org. Independence Hall Association, n.d. Web. 4 Mar 2012. <http://www.ushistory.org/documents/constitution.htm>. 

Early Stages of Corporatocracy in America

      In the early 1800's the authority of the Federal Government appeared to be nonexistent with regards to allowing newly formed monopolies in America to bring about a severely unbalanced distribution of wealth and using this new-found wealth to gain control over their industries.

      "In the thirty years leading up to the Civil War, the law was increasingly interpreted in the courts to suit the capitalist development of the country." (Zinn, 239)  This wrecked havoc upon the lower and middle classes by giving big corporations the upper hand against smaller businesses in the economy.  For instance Zinn goes on to state that large corporations were able to get away with destroying competitors property via flooding in order to stay ahead of the competition.  Also the law of "eminent domain" was abused by the government.  Taking land away from farmers in order for larger corporations to come in and build canals, factories and railroads.  In turn the government would be rewarded for their assistance.   

"Railroad men traveled to Washington and to state capitals armed with money, shares of stock, free railroad passes. Between 1850 and 1857 they got 25 million acres of public land, free of charge, and millions of dollars in bonds-loans-from the state legislatures. In Wisconsin in 1856, the LaCrosse and Milwaukee Railroad got a million acres free by distributing about $900,000 in stocks and bonds to fifty-nine assemblymen, thirteen senators, the, governor." (Zinn, 220)

Zinn states that railroad companies traded cash, stocks and free railroad passes to members of the local governments in exchange for large amounts of land.  This allowed corporations the ability to blow any and all competition off of the table.  For instance fifteen families know as the "associates" had control over "20 percent of the cotton spindleage in the United States, 39 percent of insurance capital in Massachusetts, 40 percent of banking resources in Boston." (Zinn, 220)  The numbers recorded are just go to show that the leaders of the United States, during the mid 1800's, were more focused on profits and loading their own pockets with cash.  Rather than, regulating the distribution of wealth throughout the country if not equally then fairly.  As a result of this inequality the lower and middle classes suffered a huge hit in 1873 during another economic crisis.  Thousands of small businesses closed down due to the fact they could not pay off their loans and mortgages.  As a result, it brought about cold, hunger, and death to working class while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, continued to grow.

      In essence, the way in which corporations conducted themselves and with the governments help they were capable of passing laws in order to monopolize certain areas of the economy. However, even to this day corporations continue to have support from the government in what they do.  Some would say that corporations have an enormous influence over the economic decisions that are passed in the legislature today in order to help themselves create more profit.  “A corporate firm enjoys special privileges and powers granted in a charter from the government, among them that investors and directors are not personally liable for the company’s debts.  Unlike companies owned by an individual, family, or limited partnership, in other words, a corporation can fail without ruining its directors and stockholders.  Corporations were therefore able to raise far more capital than these traditional forms of enterprise.”  (Foner, 322)

Works Cited:
1. Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008. Print.

2. Foner, Eric. Give Me Liberty!: an American History. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2009. Print.