Advocates for Slavery - Module 6

I had to read both essay's twice in order to get any kind of objectivity; because the first time I read them I was stunned and outraged by what my eyes were forced to transmit to my brain.  Please pardon my juvenile response, however, I found the arguments grotesque.  "...Negro is but a grown up child, and must be governed as a child, not as a lunatic or criminal."  (Fitzhugh, para. 1)  The statement is so twisted, it's a backhanded justification.  The statement tries to encompass the fact that the master's were caring parental guardians, while inserting the demoralizing reference that African Americans excelled when compared to lunatics or criminals. 

 

Fitzhugh's essay attempted to invoke sympathy for the masters, for all of their sacrifices.  "The master labors for the slave, they exchange industrial value.  But the capitalist, living on his income, gives nothing to his subjects."   (Fitzhugh, para. 6)  I just can't make any sense out of that, I find myself frustrated even attempting.  The master's income came from the products produced on the plantation, planted, harvested and maintained by the slaves.  No slaves, no income!! I get the same feeling when listening to current Republicans defending their tax stances, it makes absolutely no sense to me. 

 

Hammond's essay attempted to wrap his ugly views in a softer light, "Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand.  A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes."  (Hammond, para. 1)  By making the South female, maybe conjuring up visions of one's grandmother or mother would make the sting of the hatred seem more pleasant.  His further use of God aims to have the same affect, "They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves."  (Hammond, para. 3)  God deemed them slaves, therefore, it is just.

 

I would like to say with conviction that their arguments would not resonate with today's society, however, I don't believe that to be true.  We are such a society of have's and have-nots.  The political divide is the primary example that comes to mind.  The Republicans and Democrats are so far apart in the fundamental core values on everything from social, economic and religious views.  It is my personal opinion that the anti-gay righs believers of today would hold the same opinions as Hammond and Fitzhugh.