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.
Thank you very much for your post. Readings such as Hammond’s Letter to an English Abolitionist requires an open mind. His self-righteousness may have convinced some, but the morality of the institution he defended defeats his purpose. It is my understanding that, in his letter, Hammond defended the virtues of black slavery. He argued that, “[man] can, and actually does, hold property in [man]….” To justify his stand, Hammond used Biblical reference and stated “that God especially authorized his chosen people to purchase ‘bondmen forever’ from the heathen….” In statements like this, the feelings of moral and racial superiority of men like Hammond show through. He contended that, while he believes in holding property in man, he does not believe in “slavery in the abstract.” He added that social classifications exist in all societies, which, in the slave holding states is classified into: the slaves “who have no political influence,” the “educated and independent in their circumstance,” and the not so educated but “still elevated above the mass….” In short, all white men, regardless of social status, are equal and are superior to blacks in slave holding states. The logic in his argument, therefore, centers on racism.
ReplyDeleteSelf-righteous and self-serving men like Hammond view slavery as the only viable option, “a cornerstone” in sustaining a “well-designed and durable ‘republican edifice’.” To appeal to his reader’s emotions, Hammond elevated the American slavery institution, and taunted the English by criticizing the condition of their working class citizens—mockingly stating that the slaves in America are better off than the English free men.
History and our experiences show that the ideals documents like this hold, which center on racism, prove the futility of anti-abolitionists arguments. Slavery, whether of blacks, whites, or of any other race or color, and in any location is not good. It should also not be forgotten that, people, regardless of social status, could participate in the making of good government and be upstanding citizens.
I really enjoyed reading your analysis of the text. You put key elements that were part of the reading that I agree with. I feel that Hammond's letter is very biased to one opinion and I understand why he would have such a bias opinion because as you said he was a plant owner which made him believe that slavery was for the greater good.
ReplyDeleteI found it very amusing how Hammond references back to the bible to state/prove a point but his statement has absolutely nothing to do with the bible. I also feel that he misinterpreted the bible when he refers to the final commandment to take what is his. The real meaning, that I feel that it is, is that everyone belongs to God and Hammond did not realize that.
I also believe that these kind of letters and documents from history make us all realize how wrong people were back then and how much progress we have made and how much diversity has increased not just in the United States but everywhere.
Wow, you did a great job on analyzing the text. I feel that you really proved that you know the information like the back of your hand. You put in major parts of the reading and made them easy to connect to other key parts as well.
ReplyDeleteI found it funny that Hammond kept refernecing the bible when he felt challenged and that he pretty much made the bible read in his way. The way he interpereted it made me feel like it's all about who reads it, not what the bible actually says. I feel like even thought Hammond quoted the bible so much he never really understood the true meaning of what was being written.
Looking back at history, I feel as if people never really could get their point across in the right way. Even now with the wall street occupation, people are taking things and interpreting them all wrong to prove a point but they too barely know the meaning of what they're doing. Monique, you did a wonderful job with the text!:)
Justine Westbrook