"Letter to an English Abolitionist" Analysis- 10/20/11

In summary, James Henry Hammond, the author of this document, is arguing that slavery is an overall good that man should not fight. He begins by stating slavery cannot be helped, that like disease, poverty, or deformity, "A pledge that I would join you to set about eradicating those apparently inevitable evils of nature...By no means. To effect these things, belongs exclusively to a higher power.". Using various sources, Hammond asserts his and other southerners' beliefs that they are indeed performing God's will and their deep-set culture of slavery will not be overthrown.

Hammond's first point immediately suggests the Scripture as evidence of slavery's credibility. Citing Leviticus Chapter 25 (the third book in the Bible), he states that God commands His people to purchase "bondmen forever" and attempts to reveal the abolitionist's "hypocrisy" asserts, "...You deny that a "BONDMAN FOREVER" is a "SLAVE"; yet you endeavor to hang an argument...that the precise word "slave" is not to be found in the translation of the Bible. As if the translators....words, not God's meaning, must be regarded as his revelation". Declaring that Americans have the right to their property, and that slaves were indeed property, people were to obey the tenth commandment, "You shall not covet your neighbor's...manservant or maidservant". He argues that fighting against the institution of slavery would be futile, as in the past societies have experienced many casualties as a result of defiance of the status quo. 

This document was probably one of many written to convince people around the world that slavery was a moral good. Hammond, being both a large plantation owner and the governor of the state of South Carolina, believed that the eradication of slavery would wipe out not only his own means of making money, but also the whole economy of the South. He feared that the southern way of living would be completely uprooted, and a whole score of wrongs would occur, including miscegenation (sexual mixing of the races). With his position of power, and the publication of this letter for all to read, Hammond hoped that the abolition movement could be curbed in the United States, or at the very least in the South. 

While Hammond attempts to thwart the abolitionist's argument's against slavery, he fails to notice his own hypocrisies on a few different accounts. On the references of the Bible on slavery, he claims that the abolitionist is not understanding God's meaning. Yet, he is the one who does not understand; that God's underlying meaning of the final commandment is that his people should not harbor what rightfully belongs to someone else,  and He is merely tailoring the message to the fit the times of the people by including servants and slaves. Arguing that people who rise against established institutions of society inevitably fall, he fails to recognize the success of the Revolutionary War, the many overthrows of tyrant royalty in England, and other achievements of the same nature around the world. At one point in the document, Hammond affirms that most societies have a class system based on whether a person is rich or poor, and that a system of slavery eliminates the previous ideology. Slavery only creates a racial class system, and even it doesn't eliminate the amount of poor, uneducated people in the South. Ultimately, I do not agree with Hammond's argument, not only because I believe no race holds superiority over another, but that he does not make connections with his claims and I, like many others at the time, am not buying it.

Class Discussion Lead- Who Rushed For Gold?

After hearing the news about James Marshall’s discovery of gold in California, people from all corners of the world flooded to the Golden State. The idea of a culturally diverse West did not fit with the Anglo-American ideology of manifest destiny, so they established both the Foreign Miner’s Tax Law (a law that pushed higher taxes on non-Americans) and lynching in an attempt to drive them out. One of the largest ethnic groups, the Chinese, came as gold hunting “sojourners”, temporary residents who planned to return home once they earned enough money. Hard working and proud, the Chinese suffered from exclusion, denial of education, and violence at the hands of whites, who feared the Asian culture would undercut white labor. Americans drove Californios, original residents of Spanish and Mexican ancestry, out of the Mariano Vallejo with prejudice laws and took their land. Native American tribes were pushed to the most remote regions of the state, and fell victim to disease, starvation, and murder. Only a few prospectors managed to become rich as a result of gold findings, but the gold rush managed to attract “a rainbow of other nationalities”. While white men dominated the state at the time, racial diversity remains a significant aspect of the California Gold Rush. 

1. Why did the vast majority of "forty-niners" fail to "strike it rich" from gold?

2. How did the initial attitude of Anglo-Americans towards other cultures influence future relationships with those cultures?

Response to Noemi Gomez's Blog Post- 10/05/11

Great job summarizing the reading Noemi. You demonstrated a full knowledge of the text while making it easily understandable. I agree that the declaration as a whole represented an important shift more American citizens began to feel in terms of moral ethics. Mirroring the Separatists and Puritans before sailing to the "New World" or the citizens of Boston before the Revolutionary War, those involved in the Anti-Slavery society were merely the spark that eventually ignited a widespread movement toward freedom of a people.

In response to Alex, I can sort of see how southerners may have come to the conclusion that slavery was just based on those Bible verses, but they failed to observe the context around them. Quoted from http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/genesis/Lesson_7.htm, "Ham, father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.....

Ham is identified as the father of Canaan, suggesting that Canaan played a part in these events.

He added "Blessed be Yahweh, God of Shem, let Canaan be his slave! 27May God make a space for Japheth, may he live in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his slave!

Noah defined Shem as his heir and the mediator of the covenant God formed with Noah and creation.  In that role, Shem became God's high priest in offering sacrifice.  Shem will bear the authority of his father and the youngest son, Japheth, will look to Shem as his leader and benefactor, while Canaan will be completely subservient to Shem's authority without any share in the inheritance."

Examining the text above, it reveals that Canaan was not just an innocent bystander, but may have been involved and/or encouraged his father. Therefore, Canaan was being punished by not sharing an inheritance, being a figurative "slave" to the eldest son. No actual slavery was even involved! That being said, these observations were based on a Catholic point of view, and many of the people living in the south at the time were Baptist, Methodist, etc.