Summary Of George Fitzhugh 's ' The Emancipation Of Slavery ' Essay

Slavery was created in pre-revolutionary America at the start of the seventeenth century. By the time of the Revolution, slavery had undergone drastic changes and was nothing at all what it was like when it was started. In fact the beginning of slavery did not even start with the enslavement of African Americans. Not only did the people who were enslaved change, but the treatment of slaves and the culture that each generation lived in, changed as well.

In 1928 Ulrich B. Phillips wrote an argumentative essay about the reasons for the massive support that slavery received from both slaveowners and Southerners who didn’t possess slaves. The essay was well-received and supported by critics in the 1930-s. However, closer to 1950-s critics started doubting the objectivity of Phillip’s writing. It’s important to note that Ulrich B. Phillips is a white historian from the South, writing from a perspective of a white Southerner. When he was writing his article he failed to step back from his bias and provide fully objective support for the main theme of his argument, setting a doubt to the reliability of his work.

Although, Slavery had existed for centuries as a lowest social status in different parts of the world like Africa, Roman Empire, Middle East and etc., in English colonies slavery gained an importance, because of increasing demand for labor force and becoming relationship legitimated by law. Therefore, Englishmen were the reason of slavery in the colonies and its consequences.

“’One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought to be restricted. That,’ he said with a touch of irony, ‘is the only substantial dispute’” (Oakes 140). People bickered whether or not Lincoln was doing the right thing by signing the Emancipation

Slavery was held out until 1865, but during this time period abolitionist are trying to do anything to stop slavery. The reason being is because slavery wasn’t slavery anymore. Slavery was beginning to become more advance due to technological innovation. The Abolitionist are people that were against slavery and would boycott anything to get rid of slavery. The argument that the Abolitionist had during this time period was its conditions as violating Christian’s principals and rights to equality. The abolishment of slavery was a significant change in the history of slavery, because of all the technological innovation that was making the slaves jobs easier. In the American Revolution war slavery played a role in which they began a sequence of abolishing slavery. Slavery played a role in the American revolutionary war to begin to grant themselves freedom, liberty, and rights. Slavery changed in 1808 due to a bill that abolished the slave trade. The westward expansion divided the nation because the north and the south weren’t coming into agreement of change going on in the United States. The abolitionist had a plan and that plan was to abolish all slavery throughout the whole United States. These are some of the main things that would lead to the abolishment of 1865.

Throughout the history of mankind, slavery has existed in one form or another. Since the times of ancient civilizations to modern era subjugations, there have forces who feel strongly of its necessity and purpose, while others have devoted themselves to seeing the ideas and acts of slavery abolished. America is not an exception to the concept of slavery and during the nation’s early history, parties from both sides have been made famous for their beliefs in the continuation or the denouncement of slavery in the United States. To understand the contrasting views of pro-slavery advocates versus abolitionists in antebellum America, a comparison of the individual positions must be made to further understand the goals of each party.

“Slavery Justified,” by George Fitzhugh, was more than just a pro slavery book. Inside, he wrote that the Southern way of life is the one that G-d wants everyone to be living. He created this ideal society out of Southern living. Calling it a feudal society, Fitzhugh told all about the mutual master slave relationship, and that there is a real connection between the two. With a paternalistic relationship, the masters protect and care for the slaves and in return the slaves work for them with no freedom. In contrast, the Northerners treat their workers terribly. Ever since the American Revolution, the North has been deteriorating and is full of disorder and crime, as a result of mistreated workers. According to him, the same has happened in Europe. Industrialization led to big cities, and those who work there aren 't treated well which leads to crime.

In a state of independence there is more jealousy and hostility towards one another. There are no mobs, trade unions, strikes for increase in wages, armed resistance to law, jealousy of rich by the poor, few people in jail and fewer people in poor houses. George Fitzhugh took a very radical approach in making the argument for pro slavery, he is clear with his point and never once agreed or suggested positive points about emancipation. When comparing the North and the South he states that wealth is better distributed in the south where slaves are abundant than in the North. He alludes to the fact that economies in France, England, and New England always keep famine close because it leaves no room to “retrench”. Where as in the South they have a wasteful mode of living which in result leaves room for retrenchment. George Fitzhugh fails to recognize the fact that the one’s enslaved have been confined and forced into a system of living that they know no better than. They were taken from their homes and forced to work for an owner who couldn’t recognize that they were individuals who would one day realize the true reality of the situation they were forced into. He is taking a side that only focuses on the want and belief of the slave-owner without accounting for the actual slaves. This being the key in the “sociology of the South”, they were so entrenched in the idea that slaves were the key to a successful economy that

In the American colonies, Virginians switched from indentured servants to slaves for their labor needs for many reasons. A major reason was the shift in the relative supply of indentured servants and slaves. While the colonial demand for labor was increasing, a sharp decrease occurred in the number of English migrants arriving in America under indenture. Slaves were permanent property and female slaves passed their status on to their children. Slaves also seemed to be a better investment than indentured servants. Slaves also offered masters a reduced level of successful flight.

I will use this speech to defend my position and conclude the debate. In response to the idea of utilitarianism, all Mr. Abolitionist says it that our government is not utilitarian, but this is clearly false. Look at Congress: they debate bills based on whether they will help or harm (on net) the country. A cost-benefit analysis is looking at policy through a utilitarian lens, and through one it is very clear that slavery is justified. Moreover, in my last speech, I argued in favor of slavery on the basis of maintaining the stability of “King Cotton,” and my opponent says that abolition would help nonslaveholding whites. This assumes, however, that these men are willing to do the rather difficult tasks of a slave that involve more than twelve

In American history, every event and person plays a part in the future. For example, rich plantation owners helped America advance their economy. However, that would not have been at all possible without the help of their slaves. The time and institution of slavery is a time of historical remembrance. It played a primary role during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. The treatment, labor conditions, and personal stories of these slaves’ treatment and labor conditions are all widely discussed around the world to this day.

‘ What do you think about slavery? In the historical texts, “ No Compromise with the Evil Slavery” by William Lloyd Garrison, “The ‘Mudsill’ Theory” by James Henry Hammond, and Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” Speech by Abraham Lincoln, each author expresses how they feel about slavery. Garrison, author of “No Compromise with the Evil Slavery”, believes slavery should be abolished because it is not humane. “The law that makes him a chattel is to be trampled underfoot…” This is basically saying that the law makes slaves and/or “animals” should be destroyed. Another example is “Every slave is a stolen man; every slaveholder is a man stealer.”

Fitzhugh’s views “attacked northern society as corrupt and slavery as a gentle system designed to “protect” the inferior black race and promote social harmony.” (Fitzhugh, 1854). Even though, Fitzhugh wanted slavery to work the same way a communist country worked, his views on slavery proved to be resilient despite both reform movements challenging slavery and the rise of democracy in the U.S. Fitzhugh felt that liberty and equality were not enhancing the comfort or the happiness of the people instead he thought that a system where the profits were divided according to each man's wants rather than labor would work better (Fitzhugh, 1854). He explained that with a communist system like this “There is no rivalry, no competition to get employment

American’s who live in the 21st century know that slavery is terrible and also a touchy subject. But Americans used to rely heavily on slavery, how we perceive slavery in today’s society can either be the same or different from how others thought of slavery living within mid 1800s. People who resided in the northern region of American found slavery wrong as we do today. Americans who lived farther south however liked, and relied on slavery. In today’s world, we Americans almost all agree that slavery had been a negative factor of our country. But within the 1840s and 1870s, Americans had been divided by slavery. People that were against slavery created the union as the pro slavery citizens created the confederates. Today, we can see why people of the mid 19th century either supported slavery or rebelled against it by reviewing sources.

In this chapter, Foster talks about how literature is viewed differently at different times, and he recommends that readers try to see it from the point of view it was meant to be seen. This begs the question, do readers have to research every book’s time period before they read? I think the answer is no, not exactly. If someone is well informed on the time period they are reading in, there is no need for more research. If the topic is timeless, if it stays relatively the same no matter when exactly it happened, then there is no need to research. If the reader is simply enjoying a novel for fun and is alright with missing a few references, there is no need for research. However, if the reader wants the fullest experience they are capable of,