Pro and Contra of American Slavery: a Comparison of “The Blessings of Slavery” by George Fitzburg and “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave”
Defending and even blessing the institute of slavery in our days is barbarous. However, this was not so obvious in America less than two centuries ago, and the voices of advocates of slavery were not less loud than the ones of abolitionists. This paper is to analyze and compare the arguments of both parties presented in “The Blessings of Slavery” by George Fitzburg (pro slavery) and the works of Frederick Douglass presented in his “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave” and his Independence Day Speech at Rochester in1841. In order to avoid confusions I will refer to Douglass’s book as “Douglass” with stipulation of the page number, and his speech shall be referred as “Douglass, 1841”.
The first striking difference between the arguments of the two mentioned authors is that Fitzburg attempts to provide logical justification of slavery as “natural, normal and necessary status, under the ordinary circumstances” (Fitzburg, George “The Blessing of Slavery”. Google docs. Web. 9 Dec. 2009), which is not so brutal, as one may think. In contrast, Douglass is very emotional in his view of slavery as a degrading institution which humiliates man and ruins social virtues. Fitzburg asserts that under the existing condition slavery is justifiable, although it can be abolished in a remote perspective, while Douglass rejects slavery as itself, whatever the justification of slavery may be as “great sin and shame of America” (Douglass Frederick. “Independence Day Speech at Rochester”. Libertynet. Web. 9 Dec. 2009).
Fitzburg starts by assuming that “the negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world” (Fitzburg). His first issue is description of working and living conditions of slaves, and he presents them in a very attractive manner, including only nine hours of work daily (this was indeed a good condition at the time), work in sunny days only, protection and care by masters, opportunity to celebrate and spend the free time in leisure. The argument develops from rational description to admiration of the minor fact that slaves have an additional hour to sleep. Further in the course of his other mediations in the Fitzburg repeats this argument about better working conditions for slaves than for free workers of the North where “capital…taxes, oppresses and persecutes free laborer” (Fitzburg). Surprisingly, the argument about relatively easy work for laves children is supported by Douglass who writes of his childhood: “I had a great deal of leisure time. The most I had to do was to drive up the cows at evening, keep the fowls out of the garden, keep the front yard clean, and run of errands for my old master's daughter, Mrs. Lucretia Auld” (Douglass Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave. Forgotten Books. Web. 9 Dec. 2009. 30). In chapter VI he describes his new mistress as “a woman of the kindest heart” (Douglass 43). More than that, his masters do care about teaching teenage Douglass to read and write.
Fitzburg would, probably, eagerly refer to Douglass’s book to prove his point, in case the book contained such idealistic visions only. However, Douglass was simply lucky enough to have good masters. Most of the other slaves were not so happy. They performed work for an allowance of food and clothing, while the masters felt free to do whatever they wanted to their slaves. At the beginning of his book Douglass hints that his father was, probably, his white master who had sexual intercourses with Douglass’s mother, yet refused to recognize the baby. Throughout his life Douglass how masters inflicted severe punishments on their slaves (“I have seen him whip a woman, causing the blood to run half an hour at the time; and this, too, in the midst of her crying children, pleading for their mother's release” (Douglass 24) and suffered this himself later in his life when his master “Mr. Covey gave me a very severe whipping, cutting my back, causing the blood to run, and raising ridges on my flesh as large as my little finger” (Douglass 66). So, perhaps certain slaves did enjoy the relatively bearable living conditions described by Fitzburg, however, they were completely dependent on their master’s whims and their wellbeing was illusory. Fitzburg’s argument about harsh working conditions of the northern laborers is, in fact, irrelevant, for it is related to the rights of the northern workers, but not to limitation of rights of southern slaves.
Fitzburg’s second notable argument is reference to the Bible and history as justification of slavery. As he puts it, “to insist that a status of society, which has been almost universal, and which is expressly and continuously justified by Holy Writ, is its natural, normal and necessary status…is on its face a plausible and probable proposition. To insist on less is to insist…that a Bible cannot be true” (Fitzburg). He further asserts that having slaves from other races is much more tolerant than having slaves from own race as, according to Fitzburg, the capitalists of the North do, and that the attitude towards negroes is much better on the South.
There is no direct response to this “Biblical argument” in Douglass’s works, yet he does write about moral consequences of slavery, which can hardly be justifiable by the Bible. His kindhearted mistress, who, in the most Christian manner, “had bread for the hungry, clothes for the naked, and comfort for every mourner” (Douglass 47) was very soon corrupted by owing a single slave and “slavery proved as injurious to her as to me” (Douglass 47). In his Independence Day Speech Douglass provides another counterargument: slavery ruins national unity, for the day of the Independence Day is a mockery for millions of those who are unable to feel themselves Americans. Here Douglass rises to the epic level when he turns to the passage from the Bible, asking “How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?” (Douglass, 1841). In the book Douglass adds that “the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes” (Douglass 82). Thus, according to Douglass, the nation will be torn and sinful until slavery continues to exist. Here Douglass’s argument appears to be stronger, since Fitzburg refers to some abstract idea of the Holy Writ, while Douglass ties Christian ideas to the concrete circumstances.
The third argument introduced by Fitzburg is that “our Southern slavery has become a benign and protective institution” for negroes “unfitted for the mechanic arts, for trade and all skillful pursuits” (Fitzburg). Thus, slavery turns out to be a mechanism that defends slaves against the cruel and competitive world by granting them certain firmly established status in which they are able to satisfy their minimal vital requirements.
The first counterargument to this argument is provided by Douglass merely by description of his late years in slavery when he worked at the shipyard and earned as much wages as his white colleagues (Douglass 95). The second counterargument can be found in his Independence Day speech, when he notes that “we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, and secretaries, having among us lawyers doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers…we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men” (Douglass, 1841). It can be observed that Fitzburg’s argument is based on abstract assertion that “blacks will not be able to successfully compete with the whites”, while Douglass provides particular examples proving that Fitzburg’s argument is futile.
The last week, but quite curious Fitzburg’s argument is that the North is hypocritical in its abolitionists moods. As he puts it, “the aversion to negroes, the antipathy of race, is much greater on the North than on the South” (Fitzburg). To this he adds that southern landowners were opponents of slave trade ever since Revolution, while northern states benefited from slave trade, as well as from goods produced by slaves labor. Yet, this is another irrelevant argument, since it deals with the vices of the North, but not with advantages of slavery itself.
Douglass never treated Northerners as saints. His opinion is that until slavery exists in the country, “for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival” (Douglass, 1841). It is the guilt of all Americans, not only of the Southerners. Yet, at least in the times of Douglass, the North was a great opportunity for the slaves, of what he writes: “I found many, who had not been seven years out of their chains, living in finer houses, and evidently enjoying more of the comforts of life, than the average of slaveholders in Maryland” (Douglass, 113). Perhaps antagonism between blacks and whites did exist on the North, yet it originated from slavery, but not from abolitionism.
The core difference between Fitzburg and Douglass is that Douglass was a slave once, so he practically knew what slavery is, while Fitzburg’s reasoning is purely theoretical. This predetermined the difference in their arguments. Fitzburg justifies slavery with abstract mental constructions (like referring to the Holy Writ) or prejudices (like the one that blacks will not be able to compete with the whites). In contrast, Douglass, although being emotional, still explains his position from factual point of view. This ability to link arguments to life makes his arguments stronger.
The first striking difference between the arguments of the two mentioned authors is that Fitzburg attempts to provide logical justification of slavery as “natural, normal and necessary status, under the ordinary circumstances” (Fitzburg, George “The Blessing of Slavery”. Google docs. Web. 9 Dec. 2009), which is not so brutal, as one may think. In contrast, Douglass is very emotional in his view of slavery as a degrading institution which humiliates man and ruins social virtues. Fitzburg asserts that under the existing condition slavery is justifiable, although it can be abolished in a remote perspective, while Douglass rejects slavery as itself, whatever the justification of slavery may be as “great sin and shame of America” (Douglass Frederick. “Independence Day Speech at Rochester”. Libertynet. Web. 9 Dec. 2009).
Fitzburg starts by assuming that “the negro slaves of the South are the happiest, and in some sense, the freest people in the world” (Fitzburg). His first issue is description of working and living conditions of slaves, and he presents them in a very attractive manner, including only nine hours of work daily (this was indeed a good condition at the time), work in sunny days only, protection and care by masters, opportunity to celebrate and spend the free time in leisure. The argument develops from rational description to admiration of the minor fact that slaves have an additional hour to sleep. Further in the course of his other mediations in the Fitzburg repeats this argument about better working conditions for slaves than for free workers of the North where “capital…taxes, oppresses and persecutes free laborer” (Fitzburg). Surprisingly, the argument about relatively easy work for laves children is supported by Douglass who writes of his childhood: “I had a great deal of leisure time. The most I had to do was to drive up the cows at evening, keep the fowls out of the garden, keep the front yard clean, and run of errands for my old master's daughter, Mrs. Lucretia Auld” (Douglass Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave. Forgotten Books. Web. 9 Dec. 2009. 30). In chapter VI he describes his new mistress as “a woman of the kindest heart” (Douglass 43). More than that, his masters do care about teaching teenage Douglass to read and write.
Fitzburg would, probably, eagerly refer to Douglass’s book to prove his point, in case the book contained such idealistic visions only. However, Douglass was simply lucky enough to have good masters. Most of the other slaves were not so happy. They performed work for an allowance of food and clothing, while the masters felt free to do whatever they wanted to their slaves. At the beginning of his book Douglass hints that his father was, probably, his white master who had sexual intercourses with Douglass’s mother, yet refused to recognize the baby. Throughout his life Douglass how masters inflicted severe punishments on their slaves (“I have seen him whip a woman, causing the blood to run half an hour at the time; and this, too, in the midst of her crying children, pleading for their mother's release” (Douglass 24) and suffered this himself later in his life when his master “Mr. Covey gave me a very severe whipping, cutting my back, causing the blood to run, and raising ridges on my flesh as large as my little finger” (Douglass 66). So, perhaps certain slaves did enjoy the relatively bearable living conditions described by Fitzburg, however, they were completely dependent on their master’s whims and their wellbeing was illusory. Fitzburg’s argument about harsh working conditions of the northern laborers is, in fact, irrelevant, for it is related to the rights of the northern workers, but not to limitation of rights of southern slaves.
Fitzburg’s second notable argument is reference to the Bible and history as justification of slavery. As he puts it, “to insist that a status of society, which has been almost universal, and which is expressly and continuously justified by Holy Writ, is its natural, normal and necessary status…is on its face a plausible and probable proposition. To insist on less is to insist…that a Bible cannot be true” (Fitzburg). He further asserts that having slaves from other races is much more tolerant than having slaves from own race as, according to Fitzburg, the capitalists of the North do, and that the attitude towards negroes is much better on the South.
There is no direct response to this “Biblical argument” in Douglass’s works, yet he does write about moral consequences of slavery, which can hardly be justifiable by the Bible. His kindhearted mistress, who, in the most Christian manner, “had bread for the hungry, clothes for the naked, and comfort for every mourner” (Douglass 47) was very soon corrupted by owing a single slave and “slavery proved as injurious to her as to me” (Douglass 47). In his Independence Day Speech Douglass provides another counterargument: slavery ruins national unity, for the day of the Independence Day is a mockery for millions of those who are unable to feel themselves Americans. Here Douglass rises to the epic level when he turns to the passage from the Bible, asking “How can we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?” (Douglass, 1841). In the book Douglass adds that “the religion of the south is a mere covering for the most horrid crimes” (Douglass 82). Thus, according to Douglass, the nation will be torn and sinful until slavery continues to exist. Here Douglass’s argument appears to be stronger, since Fitzburg refers to some abstract idea of the Holy Writ, while Douglass ties Christian ideas to the concrete circumstances.
The third argument introduced by Fitzburg is that “our Southern slavery has become a benign and protective institution” for negroes “unfitted for the mechanic arts, for trade and all skillful pursuits” (Fitzburg). Thus, slavery turns out to be a mechanism that defends slaves against the cruel and competitive world by granting them certain firmly established status in which they are able to satisfy their minimal vital requirements.
The first counterargument to this argument is provided by Douglass merely by description of his late years in slavery when he worked at the shipyard and earned as much wages as his white colleagues (Douglass 95). The second counterargument can be found in his Independence Day speech, when he notes that “we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, and secretaries, having among us lawyers doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers…we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men” (Douglass, 1841). It can be observed that Fitzburg’s argument is based on abstract assertion that “blacks will not be able to successfully compete with the whites”, while Douglass provides particular examples proving that Fitzburg’s argument is futile.
The last week, but quite curious Fitzburg’s argument is that the North is hypocritical in its abolitionists moods. As he puts it, “the aversion to negroes, the antipathy of race, is much greater on the North than on the South” (Fitzburg). To this he adds that southern landowners were opponents of slave trade ever since Revolution, while northern states benefited from slave trade, as well as from goods produced by slaves labor. Yet, this is another irrelevant argument, since it deals with the vices of the North, but not with advantages of slavery itself.
Douglass never treated Northerners as saints. His opinion is that until slavery exists in the country, “for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival” (Douglass, 1841). It is the guilt of all Americans, not only of the Southerners. Yet, at least in the times of Douglass, the North was a great opportunity for the slaves, of what he writes: “I found many, who had not been seven years out of their chains, living in finer houses, and evidently enjoying more of the comforts of life, than the average of slaveholders in Maryland” (Douglass, 113). Perhaps antagonism between blacks and whites did exist on the North, yet it originated from slavery, but not from abolitionism.
The core difference between Fitzburg and Douglass is that Douglass was a slave once, so he practically knew what slavery is, while Fitzburg’s reasoning is purely theoretical. This predetermined the difference in their arguments. Fitzburg justifies slavery with abstract mental constructions (like referring to the Holy Writ) or prejudices (like the one that blacks will not be able to compete with the whites). In contrast, Douglass, although being emotional, still explains his position from factual point of view. This ability to link arguments to life makes his arguments stronger.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment