HIST 101 Week 6 Discussion

HIST 101 Week 6 Discussion | American Public University System 

Week 6 Readings: U.S. History, Chapter 14 and Chapter 15

You have been divided into two groups.  For this discussion, Group A (last name A-L) will assume the role of an individual in support of slavery, while Group B (last name M-Z) will argue against it.

It is important to understand that this debate does not ask for your opinion on this controversial issue. In today's world, there is no justifiable reason to hold another in bondage and no one is advocating for that. Instead, the assignment asks that you determine how an individual from the 1800s who supported slavery, might have answered this question.  The assignment asks that you look at the arguments of individuals both in favor of and against slavery before the Civil War.

The following is a statement from the social theorist George Fitzhugh.  Each of you should post a statement in support, or in opposition to Fitzhugh's argument. Try not to make assumptions.  Instead, assume the historical role of someone who lived in the United States in the period prior to the Civil War.  Not all Northerners opposed slavery, and not all Southerners favored it.  You could be a plantation owner, a slave trader, or a Southern politician.  Conversely, you can be an abolitionist, a Northern politician, or even a slave.  Be creative.

After your initial submission, you are then required to continue the debate by responding to three of your classmates. Your responses should contribute to the dialogue. Your initial response is due by 11:55 pm, ET, Thursday and your responses to 3 other students by 11:55 pm, ET, Sunday. 

In response to arguments against slavery, George Fitzhugh insisted that, "Domestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner, in every thing but the arts of thrift. …

But the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all property in common, but to divide the profits not according to each man's in-put and labor but according to each man's wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The master's wants are most costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master to participate in the profits of another concern; he marries when he pleases, because he knows he will have to work no more with a family than without one, and whether he live or die, that family will be taken care of; he exhibits all the pride of ownership, despises a partner in a smaller concern, "a poor man's negro," boasts of "our crops, horses, fields and cattle;" and is as happy as a human being can be. And why should he not? – he enjoys as much of the fruits of the farm as he is capable of doing, and the wealthiest can do no more. Great wealth brings many additional cares, but few additional enjoyments. Our stomachs do not increase in capacity with our fortunes. We want no more clothing to keep us warm. We may create new wants, but we cannot create new pleasures. The intellectual enjoyments which wealth affords are probably balanced by the new cares it brings along with it."[1]