In this letter, John Henry Hammond (a South Carolina politician and slave owner) responds to an Englishman who has criticized the institution of slavery and called for emancipation of the slaves in America. Hammond responds in a methodical, logical and precise manner, effectively deflating the emotional qualities of many pro-abolition arguments of the day.
Hammond attempts to use logic to analyze and systematically refute the claims of the abolitionists. He first uses Biblical references to validate the purchase and ownership of slaves. This was an argument that divided many American Protestants; is the Bible pro-slavery? By founding their arguments (in large part) on emotional appeal and Biblical authority, abolitionists had left themselves open to many pro-slavery rebuttals. The Bible is arguably as pro-slavery as the Constitution was at that time.
Hammond continues his rebuttal by using philosophical arguments (in existence since the time of Plato) regarding the merits of government by the masses or the aristocracy. He also hints at the low social status and intellectual ability of American Abolitionists.
He continues, extolling the financial benefits of slavery, the civic-minded responsibility of the "gentleman slave owner," the relationship between social obligation, treatment of slaves and productivity, and finally turns the argument back on his accuser.
He finishes by attacking conditions in British factories and the plight of the poor in that country. He believed that slaves enjoyed a far higher standard of living than the poor in England.
On the surface (if you can suppress your modern-day hatred for the institution of slavery,) Hammond seems to present an effective argument. Upon close examination, however, we can discover some great fallacies in his logic. Appealing the Bible as a guide for government, morality, etc., though socially acceptable at the time, is an appeal to an unqualified authority. As a historical example, he distorts the argument by changing the subject to the role of the people in government; a red herring. Finally, he attacks his opponent as a hypocrite by asserting that the poor in England are treated worse than slaves in America.
This argument, though greatly flawed, is significant because it allows a glimpse into the mind of a "true believer" in slavery. He claims to have no great love for slavery, acknowledges the financial benefits of the practice, dodges the issue by claiming to treat slaves humanely and turns arguments back on his accusers.
It may be difficult for us to imagine how someone could rationalize slavery in this manner, but in it's time, this argument reflected the belief of many Americans (north and south.) It is easy to try to imagine millions of angry abolitionists railing against this injustice, but that is pure fantasy. Abolitionists were a very small, vocal minority group. This letter gives insight into the mind of many educated, wealthy politicians; the majority of less-privileged Americans (north and south) probably gave the matter even less consideration.
What is most telling in this letter, is that Hammond refuses to admit that the government exists to provide and preserve liberty. I cannot help but to wonder if his feelings would change if he were deprived of his own liberty, and what arguments he would use against his persecutors.
First of all, i would like to say that your presentation of the article is excellent.However, I feels that at some places, you have used complex sentences, which I find hard to understand. But overall, great work. John Henry Hammond has defended slavery and proved his point in a very accurate and precise manner.He has brought up very good points in the defense of slavery by first citing the example of Bible. He argues that slavery is not bad and is rather, approved by Christ through his apostles. It is their duty to abide by the laws of God.I agree with you on the point that he uses Bible as the most powerful weapon to prove his defense of slavery. He later argues that every man on the earth is equal and he does not believe in casteism.As a result, they treat their slaves with respect and dignity and do not let them starve. They provide them food, clothing and shelter. They never force small children into labor. In other words, slave-owners are kind masters. He argues that the civil rights granted to them do not allow them to kill or punish the slaves beyond limits. Instead, they prevents them to be mean and cruel. Only those slaveholders are sinners who overlook their slaves and violate their moral obligations. He concludes by saying that the working class in Britain is being degraded more badly than the American slaves.This is morally wrong because both the English accusers of cruelty to slaves in America and southern Americans are of the same race.In retaliation, he replies that instead of accusing them for holding slaves, they must first provide relief to the poor Britishers.
ReplyDeleteYour summary on James Henry Hammond was well written. In this letter, like you said in your summary, the bible was used to defend his arguement over slavery. The letter talked about how in the bible, slavery was not bad, but used for the good and is the corner-stone of their republic. He also goes on and talks about how no society has ever existed without the variety of classes like the rich and poor. It later goes on to talk about how no one accredited Mr. Jefferson that all men were created equal and that slaves were treated with respect. That slave owners were kind to their slaves and provided food, clothes, and shelter. That they did not make children work in labor and that their were civil rights. The laws that do not permit killing, to maim, or to punish beyond certain limits, or to overtask, or to refuse to cloth and feed his slaves. The letter also goes on comparing slaveholders to husbands, family, and friends and how slaveholders are no more than perfect as any other men. Lastly, the letter talks about how Great Britain the poor and laboring classes are more miserable and degraded than our own of the same race and color. Overall, I believe the author was trying to portray how James Henry Hammond defended against slavery and how he used the bible as a tool to help back up his word on slavery. The bible was probably the most influence the author used in this letter to help defend slavery and that slave owners were kind masters and slaves were treated with respect.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of the reading is quite effective, and even makes clear some of the points that were confusing in the original writing. I appreciated your seemingly unbiased approach to the letter because it made me realize how bitter I was throughout my reading of the article, and allowed me to take a step back and try to look at it from another point of view.
ReplyDeleteI often caught myself scoffing every now and then at some of Hammond's ridiculous arguments. Some of the things he mentioned were quite laughable, for example, that factory workers in England would envy the American slaves.
Also, you're right that back then the Bible was more influential in politics than it is today, and that in modern society, it is an illegitimate source for law-making. Unfortunately, though, there are still issues in terms of the separation of church and state (ie gay marriage).
Overall, you did a great job summarizing and analyzing this text, and I really liked your last thought; what arguments would Hammond use if HIS rights and freedom were taken away. I wonder if he ever tried putting himself in a slave's shoes?
I completely agree with you about the fallacies in Hammond's argument. To me they were so obvious and nonsensical I could barely get through the reading without my blood boiling. Hammond seems to think very highly of himself and the thought behind his argument. The argument about the economical benefits of slavery is to be expected, and obviously makes sense (if one can look past the social horrors of it). It is hard to believe, though, that any reasonable person could make an argument defending the humanitarian benefits of slavery. In this sense, I have to argue that when he made this humanitarian argument, he was simply in denial (either consciously or subconsciously). His arguments on this subject are paper thin. They are based on simply reading the bible in the light that benefits their interests best, and justifying injustice by comparing to other injustice. While it is true that conditions for the working class in England was horrible, that is no justification for also exploiting people, even if you think what you are doing is less evil. In turn, I would say that not only would his feelings change if he were put through what his slaves go through, but that there is a part of him that feels guilt for being a part of it that he must justify slavery any way he can when it is challenged.
ReplyDeleteI feel you did well in summarizing the major points of the letter. However, your analysis seems a little inconsistent to me. Although you mentioned twice in your writing about suppressing our modern day opinions, you went on to do the opposite. I guess the question is: do we analyze a historical document with modern eyes or do we analyze historical documents based on the time period? Personally, I feel that historical documents should be analyzed based on the time period, but either way the perspective should be consistent.
ReplyDeleteIn John Henry Hammond's time, the Bible was a standard reference for determining right and wrong. Beyond that, it was a reference many readers would be able to recognize and even refer to themselves after reading the author's argument. In using the Bible, John Henry Hammond developed a logical argument that could sway the opinion of the reader because of it's familiar source.
I had sort of the same response to your TA as Amy. I didn’t really understand how you perceived the article, although the TA is written well, I was confused on whether you thought it was a good bad argument for a pro-slavery in that time period. This article gives a unique heart wrenching account of how slave owners were rationalizing their actions in this time period and I though Hammond did a magnificent job in writing his true honest thoughts. I find it interesting how people in all time periods and in all religions can take a piece of religious scripture and twist it into what they want to rationalize monster behavior to their fellow man. This was obviously an intelligent man who was egotistical and had no kind thought for any individual who did not have the intelligence or means of living that he had been given. I found this article to be argumentative, angry, but I have to say that Ben has done a great job of presenting us with an excellent account of the mindset in this time period. This really created a true picture for me about how someone in this time period could try to rationalize this ownership of other humans, even though it is a tough read.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback! For those of you who feel I have incorrectly analyzed the argument and that the Bible is in fact (or was in the 19th century) a source of logical argument, I urge you to take philosophy and logic classes; you do not seem to understand the concepts of validity and cogency. Citing religious authority as a premise for an inductive argument makes the argument illogical. This is not a modern perspective; Paine, Rousseau, de Tocqueville and Montesquieu would likely have made similar comments on the logic of Hammond's argument. To cite the Bible as a standard reference to right and wrong is aslo misleading. America was widely criticized for allowing religious fanaticism to influence politics and the law. This has not changed to this day. The religious nature of the book aside, the widespread contradictions in the Bible make it an unsuitable guide for government and law.
ReplyDeleteWell i did not really understand the article to much, but you did a really good job on John Henry Hammond on how he defended slavery and proved his point in a very accurate and precise way and he also brought up some good points in the defense of slavery by citing the example of the Bible. and also argues that slavery is not bad and is rather. approved by Christ through his apostles, It is their duty to abide by the laws of God.I agree with you on the point that he uses Bible as the most powerful weapon to prove his defense of slavery. and This really created a true picture for me about how someone in this time period could try to rationalize this ownership of other human. but overall i really had a hard getting it. so it made it hard for me to post anything
ReplyDelete