American History

1

Three Pro-Slavery Arguments

George Fitzhugh, Cannibals All! or Slaves Without Masters, Ch. 1: The Universal Trade

We are, all, North and South, engaged in the White Slave Trade, and he who succeeds best, is

esteemed most respectable. It is far more cruel than the Black Slave Trade, because it exacts

more of its slaves, and neither protects nor governs them. We boast, that it exacts more, when we

say, "that the profits made from employing free labor are greater than those from slave labor."

The profits, made from free labor, are the amount of the products of such labor, which the

employer, by means of the command which capital or skill gives him, takes away, exacts or

"exploitates" from the free laborer. The profits of slave labor are that portion of the products of

such labor which the power of the master enables him to appropriate. These profits are less,

because the master allows the slave to retain a larger share of the results of his own labor, than

do the employers of free labor. But we not only boast that the White Slave Trade is more

exacting and fraudulent (in fact, though not in intention,) than Black Slavery; but we also boast,

that it is more cruel, in leaving the laborer to take care of himself and family out of the pittance

which skill or capital have allowed him to retain. When the day's labor is ended, he is free, but is

overburdened with the cares of family and household, which make his freedom an empty and

delusive mockery. But his employer is really free, and may enjoy the profits made by others'

labor, without a care, or a trouble, as to their well-being. The negro slave is free, too, when the

labors of the day are over, and free in mind as well as body; for the master provides food,

raiment, house, fuel, and everything else necessary to the physical well-being of himself and

family. The master's labors commence just when the slave's end. No wonder men should prefer

white slavery to capital, to negro slavery, since it is more profitable, and is free from all the cares

and labors of black slave-holding.

Now, reader, if you wish to know yourself — to "descant on your own deformity" — read on.

But if you would cherish self-conceit, self-esteem, or self-appreciation, throw down our book;

for we will dispel illusions which have promoted your happiness, and shew you that what you

have considered and practiced as virtue, is little better than moral Cannibalism. But you will find

yourself in numerous and respectable company; for all good and respectable people are

"Cannibals all," who do not labor, or who are successfully trying to live without labor, on the

unrequited labor of other people: — Whilst low, bad, and disreputable people, are those who

labor to support themselves, and to support said respectable people besides. Throwing the negro

slaves out of the account, and society is divided in Christendom into four classes: The rich, or

independent respectable people, who live well and labor not at all; the professional and skillful

respectable people, who do a little light work, for enormous wages; the poor hard-working

people, who support every body, and starve themselves; and the poor thieves, swindlers and

sturdy beggars, who live like gentlemen, without labor, on the labor of other people. The

gentlemen exploitate, which being done on a large scale, and requiring a great many victims, is

highly respectable — whilst the rogues and beggars take so little from others, that they fare little

better than those who labor.

2

But, reader, we do not wish to fire into the flock. "Thou art the man!" You are a Cannibal! and if

a successful one, pride yourself on the number of your victims, quite as much as any Feejee

chieftain, who breakfasts, dines and sups on human flesh. — And your conscience smites you, if

you have failed to succeed, quite as much as his, when he returns from an unsuccessful foray.

Probably, you are a lawyer, or a merchant, or a doctor, who have made by your business fifty

thousand dollars, and retired to live on your capital. But, mark! not to spend your capital. That

would be vulgar, disreputable, criminal. That would be, to live by your own labor; for your

capital is your amassed labor. That would be, to do as common working men do; for they take

the pittance which their employers leave them, to live on. They live by labor; for they exchange

the results of their own labor for the products of other people's labor. It is, no doubt, an honest,

vulgar way of living; but not at all a respectable way. The respectable way of living is, to make

other people work for you, and to pay them nothing for so doing — and to have no concern about

them after their work is done. Hence, white slave-holding is much more respectable than negro

slavery — for the master works nearly as hard for the negro, as he for the master. But you, my

virtuous, respectable reader, exact three thousand dollars per annum from white labor, (for your

income is the product of white labor,) and make not one cent of return in any form. You retain

your capital, and never labor, and yet live in luxury on the labor of others. Capital commands

labor, as the master does the slave. Neither pays for labor; but the master permits the slave to

retain a larger allowance from the proceeds of his own labor, and hence "free labor is cheaper

than slave labor." You, with the command over labor which your capital gives you, are a slave

owner — a master, without the obligations of a master. They who work for you, who create your

income, are slaves, without the rights of slaves. Slaves without a master! Whilst you were

engaged in amassing your capital, in seeking to become independent, you were in the White

Slave Trade. To become independent, is to be able to make other people support you, without

being obliged to labor for them. Now, what man in society is not seeking to attain this situation?

He who attains it, is a slave owner, in the worst sense. He who is in pursuit of it, is engaged in

the slave trade. You, reader, belong to the one or other class. The men without property, in free

society, are theoretically in a worse condition than slaves. Practically, their condition

corresponds with this theory, as history and statistics every where demonstrate. The capitalists, in

free society, live in ten times the luxury and show that Southern masters do, because the slaves to

capital work harder and cost less, than negro slaves.

The negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and, in some sense, the freest people in the world.

The children and the aged and infirm work not at all, and yet have all the comforts and

necessaries of life provided for them. They enjoy liberty, because they are oppressed neither by

care nor labor.

The women do little hard work, and are protected from the despotism of their husbands by their

masters. The negro men and stout boys work, on the average, in good weather, not more than

nine hours a day. The balance of their time is spent in perfect abandon Besides, they have their

Sabbaths and holidays. White men, with so much of license and liberty, would die of ennui; but

negroes luxuriate in corporeal and mental repose. With their faces upturned to the sun, they can

sleep at any hour; and quiet sleep is the greatest of human enjoyments. "Blessed be the man who

invented sleep." 'Tis happiness in itself — and results from contentment with the present, and

confident assurance of the future. We do not know whether free laborers ever sleep. They are

3

fools to do so; for, whilst they sleep, the wily and watchful capitalist is devising means to

ensnare and exploitate them. The free laborer must work or starve. He is more of a slave than the

negro, because he works longer and harder for less allowance than the slave, and has no holiday,

because the cares of life with him begin when its labors end. He has no liberty, and not a single

right. We know, 'tis often said, air and water, are common property, which all have equal right to

participate and enjoy; but this is utterly false. The appropriation of the lands carries with it the

appropriation of all on or above the lands, usque ad coelumm aut ad inferos. A man cannot

breathe the air, without a place to breathe it from, and all places are appropriated. All water is

private property "to the middle of the stream," except the ocean, and that is not fit to drink.

Free laborers have not a thousandth part of the rights and liberties of negro slaves. Indeed, they

have not a single right or a single liberty, unless it be the right or liberty to die. But the reader

may think that he and other capitalists and employers are freer than negro slaves. Your capital

would soon vanish, if you dared indulge in the liberty and abandon of negroes. You hold your

wealth and position by the tenure of constant watchfulness, care and circumspection. You never

labor; but you are never free.

Where a few own the soil, they have unlimited power over the balance of society, until domestic

slavery comes in, to compel them to permit this balance of society to draw a sufficient and

comfortable living from "terra mater." Free society, asserts the right of a few to the earth —

slavery, maintains that it belongs, in different degrees, to all.

But, reader, well may you follow the slave trade. It is the only trade worth following, and slaves

the only property worth owning. All other is worthless, a mere caput mortuum, except in so far

as it vests the owner with the power to command the labors of others — to enslave them. Give

you a palace, ten thousand acres of land, sumptuous clothes, equipage and every other luxury;

and with your artificial wants, you are poorer than Robinson Crusoe, or the lowest working man,

if you have no slaves to capital, or domestic slaves. Your capital will not bring you an income of

a cent, nor supply one of your wants, without labor. Labor is indispensable to give value to

property, and if you owned every thing else, and did not own labor, you would be poor. But fifty

thousand dollars means, and is, fifty thousand dollars worth of slaves. You can command,

without touching on that capital, three thousand dollars' worth of labor per annum. You could do

no more were you to buy slaves with it, and then you would be cumbered with the cares of

governing and providing for them. You are a slaveholder now, to the amount of fifty thousand

dollars, with all the advantages, and none of the cares and responsibilities of a master.

"Property in man" is what all are struggling to obtain. Why should they not be obliged to take

care of man, their property, as they do of their horses and their hounds, their cattle and their

sheep. Now, under the delusive name of liberty, you work him, "from morn to dewy eve" —

from infancy to old age — then turn him out to starve. You treat your horses and hounds better.

Capital is a cruel master. The free slave trade, the commonest, yet the cruellest of trades.

Slavery and the Bible

4

This 1850 pro-slavery essay is from the influential southern magazine De Bow’s Review. Source:

De Bow’s Review, Vol. 9 (September 1850), pp. 281-86.

A very large party in the United states believe that holding slaves is morally wrong; this party

founds its belief upon precepts taught in the Bible, and takes that book as the standard of

morality and religion. We, also, look to the same book as our guide in the same matters; yet, we

think it right to hold slaves—do hold them, and have held and used them from childhood.

As we come to such opposite conclusions from the same foundation, it may be well to consider,

whether the Bible teaches us anything whatever, in regard to slavery; if so, what is it and how is

it taught.

The anti-slavery party maintain, that the bible teaches nothing directly upon the subject, but, that

it establishes rules and principles of action, from which they infer, that in holding slaves, we are

guilty of a moral wrong. This mode of reasoning would be perfectly fair, if the Bible really

taught nothing directly upon the subject of slavery; but when that book applies the principles it

lays down to the particular subject in controversy, we must take the application to be correct. We

think we can show, that the Bible teaches clearly and conslusively that the holding of slaves is

right; and if so, no deduction from general principles can make it wrong, if that book is true.

From the earliest period of our time down to the present moment, slavery has existed in some

form or under some name, in almost every country of the globe. It existed in every country

known, even by name, to any one of the sacred writers, at the time of his writing; yet none of

them condemns it in the slightest degree. Would this have been the case had it been wrong in

itself? would not some one o the host of sacred writers have spoken of this alleged crime, in such

terms as to show, in a manner not to be misunderstood, that God wished all men to be equal?

Abraham, the chosen servant of God, had his bond servants, whose condition was similar to, or

worse than, that of our slaves. He considered them as his property, to be bought and sold as any

other property which he owned. In Genesis xvii, 13, 23, 27, we are told that God commanded

Abraham to circumcise all his bond-servants, bought with his money, and that Abraham obeyed

God’s commandment on this same day. In Genesis xx, 14, we are told that Abimelech took sheep

and oxen, and men servants and women servants, and gave them to Abraham. In chapter xii,

verse 14, we are told that Abraham possessed sheep and oxen, and he asses, and men servants

and maid servants, and she asses, and camels. Also, in Genesis xxvi, 14, Isaac is said to have had

possessions of flocks and herds, and a great store of servants. In other places in Genesis, they are

spoken of, but always as property.

Jacob’s sons sold Joseph, their brother, to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. They

agreed with each other that they would sell him, when the Ishmaelites were afar off, and before

they could have known that the Ishmaelites would buy him; only they knew, that such sales were

common in the country at the time. The narrative of Joseph’s life in Egypt, shows that the sale of

slaves was common there.

No one can doubt, that Abraham regarded his servants as his property, and that they were so

regarded in the country in which he lived. Not only was the bond-servant of Abraham considered

5

his property, but the condition of the bond-servant was hereditary, or his child was a servant. In

Genesis xvii, 13, God not only commanded Abraham to circumcise his servants, bought with his

money, but also, those born in his house, and those which, at any future time, should be born in

his house, or in that of any of his descendants; and in the twenty-third and twenty-seventh verses

of the same chapter, we are told that Abraham did circumcise all his male servants, born in his

house, on the same day. In chapter xiv of Genesis we are told, that Abraham took three hundred

and eighteen trained servants, which had been born in his house, and pursued the kings who had

carried off Lot. These three hundred and eighteen servants were born servants.

Let us now see what control Abraham exercised over these servants born in his house and bought

with his money. God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his male servants—those born in

his house were so numerous, that he had of them three hundred and eighteen men fit for battle.

The command was, not that Abraham should use his influence over them and persuade them to

be circumcised, but he and all his descendants are commanded to circumcise them—the crime

and punishment for disobedience to this command, were to fall on him or his descendants. Now,

in order that God could have required this from Abraham, with any degree of justice, it was

necessary that Abraham should have had both the power over his servants, which was necessary

to enable him to do this, and also, that he should have had the legal and moral right to exercise

that power.

Circumcision was a requirement, until then, totally unknown. Abraham’s servants must have

regarded it as a foolish whim of his own. Nothing else could have been considered more

degrading to them, or more absurd to him. Yet, no one of all the immense number of his

servants, refused to permit the circumcision to be performed. We may well suppose, that

Abraham might have required anything else which his fancy dictated, and equally have enforced

obedience, if it were not more absurd, painful or degrading.

When Sarai, Abraham’s wife, complained to him of the conduct of Hagar, her maid servant, he

answered, thy maid is in thy hand, do to her as it pleaseth thee, showing that she wanted only her

husband’s consent to punish Hagar as she pleased. We are then told, that, when Sarai dealt

hardly with her, she fled from her face into the wilderness—there the angel of the Lord found

her; but, instead of relieving her distress, and sending her to some free country, he told her to

return and submit herself to her mistress.

When Abraham pursued Chederlaomer, the king of Elam, he took his three hundred and eighteen

servants, and his three friends, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, and recaptured a large amount of

property which had been carried away from Sodom. But when the king of Sodom offered him all

the property which he had taken, he refused everything, except what his servants had eaten and

the portion of his three friends—answering immediately for himself and his servants, and

refusing everything, but reserving the right to his friends to answer for themselves.

From the passages which I have recited and referred to, we can obtain some idea of the

conditions of Abraham’s servants. They were property bought and sold for money; their services

belonged to him, and was disposed of without their consent. Their condition was hereditary—the

master could punish or chastise the slave, and even maim him, at his pleasure. He exercised

6

rights which no southern planter would dare to exercise, and which a southern negro would not

submit to.

Abraham was a worshiper of God; he had direct and immediate communication with him. He

showed his willingness to obey God’s commands, even in offering his only son a sacrifice to

God. He is spoken of by all the sacred writers, as one who was selected, from the whole human

race, as the father of the faithful. God would not have so highly honored him, had he been living

in constant and habitual violation of his laws: nor would he have required from him the

performance of immaterial ceremonies, or of painful things not required by the moral law, and

left him ignorantly to continue to violate his duties to his fellow men. Had our abolition friends

been in God’s stead, they would have certainly acted in a very different manner. Is there one of

them who will dare to say, he would have done better than God did?

But God, instead of teaching Abraham, his chosen servant, that it was immoral to use and buy his

slaves, demanded from him the performance of certain things, which required that the relation of

master and slave should be kept up, not only during Abraham’s time, but in all future ages. And

when the angel of the Lord interfered between Sarai and Hagar, it was to cause the slave to

submit to punishment inflicted by her mistress. Under like circumstances, our slaves are

persuaded to go to Canada.

From what I have written, if it stood alone, I would infer that the holding of slaves was right, in

some cases. But this is, by no means, all that is found in the Bible upon the subject. After the

Israelites had been a long time in Egypt, they became servants to the Egyptians. At this time,

God sent Moses, as a messenger, to bring them out of Egypt. Through Moses, God gave them

laws by which they were to be governed. No law which came directly from him (the fountain of

morality), can be considered morally wrong; it might be imperfect, in not providing for

circumstances not then existing—but, so far as it does provide, the provisions are correct.

Nothing which God ordained can be a crime, and nothing for which he gave express permission

can be considered wrong.

In Leviticus xxv, we are told, that the Lord spake to Moses, saying: Speak unto the children of

Israel, and say unto them—after various provisions of the law, the 39th verse reads as follows, in

regard to servitude: If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee,

then shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant, but as an hired servant, &c.—clearly

showing that there was a distinction between bond-servant and hired-servant. After providing for

the case of a Hebrew servant, verses 44, 45, and 46, of the same law, read as follows: Both thy

bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about

you; of them shall ye buy bondmenand bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers

that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which

they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an

inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your

bondmen for ever.

In Exodus xxi, 20, 21, we find this law: And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod,

and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or

two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

7

The 26th and 27th verses of the same chapter provide, that if the servant have lost an eye or a

tooth, by a blow from the master, the servant should go free.

The 29th, 30th, 31st, and 32d verses provide, that if an ox was known to be vicious and killed a

freeman, the ox and his owner were both put to death; but if he gored a bond-servant, the ox

should be killed and the master should pay thirty shekels of silver: showing the distinction

between bond and freemen.

The law given to the Israelites, in regard to circumcision, required the master to circumcise his

male servant, bought with his money or born in his house; and, of course, it presupposes the right

and power to enforce the circumcision.

Thus, we see that at a time when the Israelites had no slaves, but were themselves, in a manner,

fugitive slaves, and when they had no use for slaves, being wanderers in a wilderness, and fed by

God’s own hand, he provided laws for bringing in, buying, inheriting and governing, slaves, in

the land unto which they were to be brought at the end of forty years. He made laws recognizing

the right of property, in man and in his descendents, forever—the right to trade in that property,

without any limit, except that the Israelites could not buy each other; and the right to punish the

slave, with no limitation, except that if the slave should die under his master’s hand, the master

should be punished—and if maimed, in certain ways, he had a right to freedom. These laws are

worse, for the slave, than the laws of any southern State. They were provided, by God himself,

for his chosen people. To any man, who admits that the Bible is given by inspiration from God,

they prove that, in buying, selling, holding and using slaves, there is no moral guilt. Like all the

institutions of the Deity, the holding of slaves may become criminal, by abuse of the slave; but

the relation, in itself, is good and moral.

In the New Testament I find frequent mention of master and servant, and of their duties. Paul and

Timothy, in writing to the Colossians, in the third chapter and twenty-second to twenty-fifth

verses, exhort servants to obey their masters in all things, and not with eye-service; and in the

fourth chapter and first verse, they exhort masters to give their servants what is just and equal.

Paul, in writing to Timothy, tells him to teach the same doctrine; and says, if any man teach

otherwise, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words: see 1

Timothy vi, 1–6. Peter, also (1 Peter ii, 18–24), exhorts servants to be obedient to their masters,

not only to the good and gentle, but to the froward.

Now, we all know, that the condition of the servant of the Roman empire, was much less free

than that of the southern negro. His master had a more unlimited control over him; yet, the

apostles say to servants, to submit to their masters—not only to the good and gentle, but to the

froward; and to masters to give to their servants what is just and equal. Now, had they considered

the relation of master and slave, one criminal or immoral, in itself, they must either have omitted

to speak of it at all, or have condemned the relation altogether.

Paul wrote an epistle to Philemon, a Christian, a disciple of his, and a slaveholder. He sent it to

him by Onesimus, also a convert, a slave of Philemon, who was a fugitive. In it, he prays

8

Philemon to charge the fault of Onesimus to him, saying he would repay it, unless Philemon

forgave it for his sake.

Now, had the holding of slaves been a crime, Paul’s duty to Philemon would have required him

to instruct Philemon, that he had no rights over Onesimus, but that the attempt to hold him in

servitude was criminal; and his duty to Onesimus would have been, in such case, to send him to

some foreign free country, whereby he might have escaped from oppression. But Paul sent him

back. Our northern friends think that they manage these matters better than Paul did.

We find, then, that both the Old and New Testaments speak of slavery—that they do not

condemn the relation, but, on the contrary, expressly allow it or create it; and they give

commands and exhortations, which are based upon its legality and propriety. It can not, then, be

wrong.

What we have written is founded solely upon the Bible, and can have no force, unless it is taken

for truth. If that book is of divine origin, the holding of slaves is right: as that which God has

permitted, recognized and commanded, cannot be inconsistent with his will.

James Henry Hammond, "The Mudsill Theory" (1858)

As the sectional crisis deepened, abolitionists (mostly in the North), and proslavery advocates

(mostly in the South) engaged in a war of words over whether or not slavery was wrong,

unnatural, and a blight on the nation. In this speech, James Henry Hammond defended slavery by

claiming that although the word slavery had fallen out of fashion, the institution of slavery

continued to thrive in all societies. He said that there was a dominant class and a "mudsill" class

everywhere and that the domination of the rich over the poor was enslavement by another name,

made only worse by the radical and disruptive practice of granting poor white men the right to

vote.

-----------------------------

Speech to the U.S. Senate, March 4, 1858

In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life.

That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor,

docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads

progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political

government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one

or the other, except on this mud-sill. 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. We use them for our

purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves by the common "consent of mankind,"

which, according to Cicero, "lex naturae est." The highest proof of what is Nature's law. We are

9

old-fashioned at the South yet; slave is a word discarded now by "ears polite;" I will not

characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is

eternal.

The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the

name, but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when

he repeals the fiat, "the poor ye always have with you;" for the man who lives by daily labor, and

scarcely lives at that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get

for it; in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and "operatives," as you call them,

are essentially slaves. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well

compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and

not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily

compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street in any

of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of

New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South. We do not think that whites

should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race.

The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in

which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of

the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and

utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations.

Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural

endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We

give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositories of

all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than

"an army with banners," and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be

reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly

attempted to initiate such proceedings by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands, but by the

quiet process of the ballot-box. You have been making war upon us to our very hearthstones.

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?