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