Slavery a Positive Good (1854)

Primary Source excerpt

We assert that negro-slavery as it exists in the United States is neither a moral nor a political evil, but on the contrary is a blessing to the white race and to the negro.

Slavery is no evil to the negro. If we look at the condition of the negro in Africa, the land of his nativity, we find the most pitiable victim of a cruel master, the most wretched slave in America, when contrasted with a prince of his tribe in the deserts of Africa, is as a man contrasted with a beast! The mightiest of the negro race in his native land not only sacrifices his human victims to his Gods of stone but is so loathsome in his filth and nakedness that [Joshua R.] Giddings or Gerrit Smith [both well-known abolitionists] would fly from his presence. Mrs. [Harriet Beecher] Stowe could not in fancy picture him a kinsman of poor Topsy [a character in Uncle Tom’s Cabin]. Fred[erick] Douglass would disown him as a countryman. It is not for us to question God's purposes but it is certain that from our first knowledge of the negro race, those only have been rescued from the lowest stage of heathen barbarity who have been made slaves to the white man — those only have learned to know the God of the Christian who have been instructed by their masters. Ages have rolled on and still the labor of the pious missionary has been in vain. The African in his native land is still an idolator! Even now the only hope of his elevation in the scale of humanity is by means of the liberated slave. But we go further and say that wherever the negro has been the slave of the white man, his condition has been better not only than that of his race in the deserts of Africa, but better than when freed from the control of the white man, in whatever land the comparison be made.

Negro slavery is no evil to the white race. There are effects procured by negro slavery which are not exhibited in the census, cannot be set down in figures, of far more importance than the acquisition of wealth or mere increase of population. These are the tendency to elevate the character of the white race, to give to that race a more exalted tone of moral sentiment. And in a republic of vital importance is its influence in giving to the white race a higher, holier, more stern and unyielding love of liberty. In making the white race emphatically a race of Sovereigns, fit members of a free government.

Not only does the institution of slavery elevate the character of the master and where the master is free render his devotion to liberty a high and holy feeling, fortify it and render it invincible. But where, as in our country, the slave is of a different race, marked and set apart by his color, it elevates the character not only of the master, the actual owner of slaves, but of all who wear the color of the freeman. With us, color not money marks the class. Black is the badge of slavery, white the color of the freeman. And the white man, however poor, whatever be his occupation, feels himself a sovereign. Though his estate be but an empty title, he will not disgrace his station by stooping for money’s sake to become the slave of another. He will treat with others as his equals, exchange his labor for their money, not honored by their service but reciprocating the favor of equal to equal. His class respects him, with the jealousy of rank will stand by him, and for the sake of their order will sustain him.

Not only does negro slavery thus elevate the character of the white man, it ennobles woman. Relieved by the slave from the abject toil, the servile condition to which the white woman is so often subjected by necessity where negro slavery does not exist and which strip her of woman’s greatest charm, modesty. Which make of her the rude, drudging, despised servant of a harsh master. The white woman becomes, as she is fitted to be, not the slave but the queen of her household, fit mate for a sovereign.

Virtuous, modest, sensitive, retiring, her only ambition to merit the love of her husband; her only pride to point to her children and say, "these are my jewels". Worshipped in her sphere, her gentle sway undisputed, the white woman in the slave-holding states needs no conventions to give her her rights. Whether she be the mistress of a mansion or the humble tenant of a cabin, to her the seat of honor is ever accorded. At home or abroad, every son of the south deems himself her champion.

Where negro slavery exists, money is not necessary to make the freeman. The white man takes rank by his color; it is his patent of nobility and until forfeited for dishonor, entitles him and commands for him all the privileges of his class. To those who envy the negro his position, we urge no argument. But to those who would see their race respected, fit to be free, we confidently appeal to reflect upon the difference which is thus effected in the condition of the white race. With all the pride and haughtiness attributed by the abolitionist to the slaveholder, we challenge a comparison of the rank in society held by the poor white man in the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. The northern mechanic who has once put foot within the limits of a slaveholding State has felt this vast difference and can bear witness to it. The humble seamstress, the despised chambermaid whose fortune has led her to the home of the slaveholder has had cause to remember his courtesy to woman. Slaveholders are proud of their color, they cannot but respect it.

But the influence of negro-slavery on the future destiny of our Republic is even more potent than its effects upon the character of those who compose the government. We have said that the preservation of our Republic in its purity depends on the institution of slavery. Politically the pauper and the man of wealth are equal. Labor has thus the power of numbers while on the other hand wealth has the power of money, the command of talent. The contest has ever proved unequal. The brute force of numbers may prevail for a time, it effects a mere convulsion. Agrarian laws may be called for, a distribution of property demanded. In the end talent and wealth will conquer and then, to protect itself, to guard against a like convulsion, strong laws will be enacted, a government of force be established. The scenes of the French revolution but illustrate the issue of this contest. Anarchy under the cry of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" rules for a day, to be followed on the morrow by an Empire!

Let the influx of foreign laborers continue, daily reducing the rate of wages. Let, as is threatened, the prisons and poorhouses of Europe be emptied on us. Let thus labor be consumed by its own strength, capital be thus still further monopolized by the few until the thousand famished victims of excessive population cry out for bread, rise in the power of numbers and demand their "equal rights", their "equal share". What then shall save the Republic from wreck?

Upon the South as upon the strong arm of a brother, so long as negro slavery exists, the North can rely. It will furnish materials to its workshops, a market for its manufactures; wealth to its capitalist, wages to the laborer. In the South no struggle between labor and capital can arise. Where slavery exists, capital and labor are one, for labor is capital. There the capitalist instead of exhausting his laborer must strengthen, protect, and preserve him, for he is his money. The interest of the laborer and the capitalist, the slave and his master, are identical; they cannot conflict. The prosperity of the master is the happiness of the slave, for his condition is improved as his master prospers. The master prospers as his slave is healthy, vigorous, and happy.

To negro slavery is the South indebted for its unrivaled prosperity, its exemption from the fearful struggle of wealth and poverty, the happy equality in the condition of its people, its practical enjoyment of the full blessings of republican government.

Let abolitionists succeed, let slavery be abolished, the negroes turned loose. The northern laborer would find a ruinous competitor, the northern capitalist a fearful addition to the strength of his enemy. In either event the struggle would be hastened to an issue. The fall of the South would bring ruin on the North. The Republic would give place to Anarchy, to be followed by the rich man's rule, a despotism.

Source: B. F. Stringfellow, Negro-Slavery, no Evil (1854), 9-35. https://archive.org/details/americanhistoryt00ivunse/page/68/mode/2up