欢迎来到留学生英语论文网

客服信息

我们支持 澳洲论文代写 Assignment代写、加拿大论文代写 Assignment代写、新西兰论文代写 Assignment代写、美国论文代写 Assignment代写、英国论文代写 Assignment代写、及其他国家的英语文书润色修改代写方案.论文写作指导服务

唯一联系方式Q微:7878393

当前位置:首页 > 论文范文 > History

The Role of Race in the Slavery Debate Prior to 1865

发布时间:2018-04-18
该论文是我们的学员投稿,并非我们专家级的写作水平!如果你有论文作业写作指导需求请联系我们的客服人员

The role of ideas of race in pro and anti-slavery arguments pre 1865

Ideas of race in the early to mid-nineteenth century were central to arguments for both the abolition and continuation of slavery. While there was growing opposition to genomics, phrenology and other “racial-sciences” from the likes of Fredrick Douglass and James McCune Smith, moderate abolitionists and advocates of slavery largely agreed on the science of the times but differed as to its implications. In the years leading up to the passing of the 13th Amendment in 1865, ideas of race were heavily based on a teleological view of nature which was popularized in the enlightenment, and scientific disciplines such as phrenology.

The teleological view of nature was a derivative of Aristotelian philosophy which claims that everything has an inherent purpose which it is trying to fulfil or realize, called telos. This view was appropriated by Christian scholars in the enlightenment and evolved to influence racial thought. The assumption of this view was that each being of God’s creation was created with distinct capabilities which were inherited by their kin, and that biological evolution was just a realization of animals and men into their ideal forms.[1] The teleological sentiment was popular in the United States because it complimented scriptural hypotheses of race, was synonymous with Christian justifications of slavery, and waylaid concerns about science becoming too naturalistic and contradicting religious thought (particularly in the Antebellum States).[2] Proponents of this extended that the capacities of a certain group defined them as a race, while still allowing for variance and exceptional individuals. History was largely the marker used to distinguish amongst races via their common capacities, as history was seen more-so as a scale on which the development of a race could be measured than a study of cause and effect.[3] This was particularly exemplified in embryonic theory. Louis Agassiz’s , among other prominent scientists who concluded on the supposed inferiority of Africans, popularly argued that the embryos of fish found in the present were similar to fully grown specimens found in fossilized records.[4] The evolution or the “history” of these fish was the elaboration of the telos present within them; a realization of potential.[5] This and other examples were extended into racial discussions. Complex modern societies that typified western culture were understood to have been birthed from primitive societies, and that the evolution into modern complex societies was evident of the teleological capacity of whites, while inferior races had yet to develop from these primordial societies due to their inherent capacities.[6] Racial groups were believed to have shared common intellectual and moral sensibilities inherited from their forefathers that would develop and then disseminate into successive generations.

The teleological sentiment was often supplemented and complimented by modern science, particularly Phrenology. Phrenology was a scientific discipline concerned with studying and mapping the brain as a means of predicting and reflecting intellectual capacity and moral disposition. To those who subscribed to Phrenology, the brain was not seen as an individual organ, but rather a composite of multiple organs, each with a separate function that could be attributed to its size and activity. Organs of the brain were identified as being responsible for aggression, compassion, perseverance, etc., and influenced an individual’s behaviour, intellectual capacity and moral intuitions. However, phrenology was not a completely fatalistic doctrine. While the size of certain organs was certainly a factor in determining individual capacities, individuals could strengthen their capacities through education and stimulus.[7] Many were convinced that environmental factors were responsible for alterations in the physical structure of the brain and accordingly, the capabilities of an individual or race. Leading experts in phrenology would point to young portraits of men such as Benjamin Franklin, and contrast them with their older counterparts to demonstrate the change over time as they developed certain organs.[8] John Dickson Bruns, an influential anthropologist, noted that according to phrenological principles, the size and the shape of the heads of African slaves in the South demonstrated changes from their ancestors and subsequently led them to be more intelligent than those remaining in Africa.[9] However, this did not explicitly justify equality. The enlightening environment of western civilization had provided sufficient stimulus to ingrain certain behaviours, which in turn became instincts passed onto their descendants. These instincts determined the capabilities of races and thusly concluded inequalities among the races – individuals could improve the stock of their racial instincts through directed cultivation and stimulus, but this did not imply that total equality was possible. A man of Anglo-Saxon stock who did not cultivate or exercise his inherent “superior instincts” could be less intelligent or moral than a negro who capitalized on the influence of western society in order to flourish, but the negro would presumably still be limited by the natural inequality of his instinctual stock.[10] The teleological sentiment leads to a conclusion that speaks more of potential than total fatalism, those of Anglo-Saxon stock had greater potential intellectual capabilities but those who had less potential could still develop to a certain point albeit a more limited one. Phrenology, perhaps more-so than other the other “racial-sciences”, had profound impacts on social theory, science and medicine. Inevitably, within the confines of teleological sentiment, it began to inform popular conceptions of racial groups and was called into debates regarding slavery. Aside from the aforementioned few who sought to discredit “racial-sciences”, phrenology and like disciplines were widely accepted and used to justify arguments for both the abolition of and the retention of slavery.

Advocates of slavery were quick to capitalize on the latest scientific evidence that suggested the intellectual and moral inferiority of Africans and synthesised this information with biblical scholarship and critical history of civilization. Published in The Daily Mississippian 1862, W.S. Grayson’s letter to the editor titled “Have we a Servile Race?” argues for slavery (albeit with caveats) from a base of a teleological understanding of race and the representation of race in Christian scripture. This article rests on the assumption that the black race is a race of born-slaves whom were imbued with the curse of slavery as per the fable of Ham. After witnessing his father naked, Canaan son of Ham, was “cursed, and a servant of servants all he be unto his brethren” and bestowed with black skin as to distinguish him and his kin from the other sons.[11] Grayson ultimately asserts that alter verses establish that slavery was an evil, but it was a “moral or a right one, since the evil is the sentence of God, which makes him the author of the institution [of slavery] – and the evil, moral”.[12] Interestingly, Grayson distinguishes between the “black race” and “Pure Negroes”. According to Grayson, Pure Negroes are not descendants of Canaan and were “endowed with the rights of free-men and of masters”, even going as far to claim that they rightfully belong to the white race.[13] This is founded on aspects of the teleological viewpoint as he calls on historical records of the armies of Xerxes and other great ancient civilizations which note a large proportion of African people as citizens and wise kings. Grayson also calls on other biblical references which insist on the idea that there was a time when man was of one race and one language and that all nations and races are descendants from Noah, and are therefore equal in rights. Pure Negroes, while liable that the Writer believed them to be genetically inferior due to environmental and historical differences, did not warrant the evil of slavery. The Writer in this instance believes that the difficulty lays in determining which of the groups designated Negroes are true sons of Canaan and which are Pure Negroes, whom should be free. Grayson ultimately concludes that biblical scripture should be adhered to, and slavery should be retained to carry out the will of God on the descendants of Canaan but the distinction between them and Negroes must be made. Underlying the arguments of the Writer is the idea that a certain race, the “black-race”, was imbued with the telos of servitude by God and that we must not attempt to stifle God’s plans by altering the place of the black race. However, unusual for an advocate of slavery, the Writer asserts the oneness of the human race, Africans included but barring the descendants of Canaan. While the biblical dissection utilized here is common of this era of pro-slavery thought, it would be wrong to accept this as representative of the perception of race by pro-slavery advocates as most believed the differences between races were both biblically supported and scientifically justified.[14]

While the explosion of racial-science in the early nineteenth century led to more naturalistic arguments for the continuance of slavery, proponents of slavery never moved far from underpinning notions of teleology. An editorial, “The Inferior Race”, published in The Boston Courier 1860, offered a more scientific and historical approach to justifying slavery. The Editor discusses the emancipation and the extension of civil and political rights to Negroes as akin to giving rights to horses; arguing that they would not have the capacity to enjoy these rights so to do so would be arbitrary and would cause societal disharmony. The Editor claims that in extending rights to Negroes, members of the white race are “[disregarding] the most obvious points of difference between them and us, and [insisting] upon an equality of mind which does not exist”, as documented by phrenology and other sciences.[15] The Editor appeals to the recent history of slave revolts and instances of emancipation, particularly the case of Jamaica following the emancipation of slavery in 1833.[16] The Editor, in this instance claims that due to their genetic inferiority, Negroes are “indolent, unintellectual, [and] sensual”, and because of that, they are unable to flourish if left to their own devices as Negroes have historically demonstrated that they are unable to govern themselves or socially progress.[17] The belief that the freedom won by slaves through European emancipations such as in Jamaica was “thrust upon them”, and that abolitionists were trying to hasten to course of events was common and again, recalls the teleological argument.[18] The Editor claims that from the abolition of slavery, society is attempting to disregard God’s plans – The Negro race is undeveloped, has yet to progress on the scale of civilization, and has yet to evolve the same progressive virtues that typify Anglo-Saxon and Nordic whites.[19] The Editor concludes:

“The picture of Jamaica as she might be, and as she is, and the contrast of Massachusetts as she is to day [sic], and as she was by nature two hundred and fifty years ago, should be enough… to show that is in vain to attempt to hasten the course of events which are in the hands of a wiser power than Congress, or the General Court…”[20]

Some proponents of the retention of slavery, the Editor included, believed that by emancipating slaves and allowing Negroes to become citizens the nation would be attempting to bring Negroes to a point beyond their current capabilities. However, this does not suggest whether it is because Africans have yet to develop these western characteristics, or whether they are fatally determined to be “indolent, unintellectual, [and] sensual.”

Abolitionists were largely in agreement on the conclusions of racial-science but disagreed about the implications – many abolitionists recognized the supposed inferiority of Negroes but believed that the realized capacities of the Negro race were sufficient enough for them to exist as model citizens and that slavery was the cause of their undesirable properties.[21] Published in The North American Review 1861, “Slavery, its Origin and its Remedy” provides a humanitarian justification for the abolition of slavery and extrapolates on the conclusions drawn from popular phrenology. The Author of this journal recognizes the popular sciences and their conclusions on the inferiority of Africans. While the Author draws on biblical examples and humanitarian reasons for the dismantling of slavery, he does so in full belief of “…the native and essential inferiority of the Negro race… we must indeed admit as a fact coextensive in time and space with our knowledge of the Africans, and their proportionately small cerebral development plainly indicates their relative capacity”[22] As far as the Author is concerned, Africans may be incapable of the same higher order functions and social complexities of whites, but this does not automatically permit their state of servitude. Like the Pro-Slavery advocates whom he is attacking, the Author takes the teleological argument and the conclusions of phrenology to be fundamental to his argument. The Author recalls the effect of stimulus and the enlightening effect of exposure to western civilization which can propel or stifle the development of a race. The Author claims that slavery stifles the intellectual development of Africans and that “under a condition of privilege” Africans could see their racial stock improved to a level comparable to whites.[23] This however, does not extend to the instant enjoyment of full civil and political rights, merely the freedom from slavery and the evils which it subjects Africans to until the African race has developed. The Author recalls a sermon from a reverend known as ‘Professor Fisher’, in which he reminds his assembly about the fable of the eagle and the lamb.

“The eagle seizes on the lamb and soars with him to the upper sky. But suddenly he sees the Injustice and the cruelty of his procedure. Shall he, therefore, drop the lamb from his clutches? That would be to commit a still greater wrong.”[24]

As per the Author’s argument, the Africans subject to slavery should not be entirely granted the same rights as whites but should be eased into citizenship as they currently do not possess the capabilities to enjoy these rights. While the Author represents a moderate abolitionist stance, there was a considerable group of intellectuals who wholly discredited racial-science and the distinctions it fabricated amongst men.

One such example of the growing opposition to racial-sciences as a whole can be found through Frederick Douglass. During a lecture tour, Douglass famously addressed to the Literary Society of Western Reserve College in 1854 condemning racial-sciences and the sub-classification of races. Douglass claimed that the progenitors of racial-sciences, notably Agassiz, Gliddon, Morton and Nott who were responsible for many works championed by pro-slavery advocates, were operating under political bias and wrote their works solely to serve their own political ends.[25] Douglass throughout his address reaffirms “the unity of the human family” and racial-sciences attempt to justify the continued subjugation and supposed inferiority of Africans in order to further their own agendas as members of the Antebellum South’s upper class.[26] The influence of the likes of Douglass certainly gave momentum to opposition of racial-sciences, or at least their implications that slavery was justified as a result of their conclusions. Published in the Scientific American in late 1856, a few years following Douglass’ then famous attack on the racial-sciences, “Ethnology, or the Races of Men” disputes the notion of racial superiority based on civil dominance. Unlike Douglass, the Author still observes race as a distinguishing factor between groups of humans and does not dispute inequalities among the races. The Author instead challenges the extent of these differences and examines how inequalities that existed at the time were more likely the result of the environments that races were subject to. The Author, in this instance, claims that cultural “character” distinguishes the positional dominance of a race more than genetic superiority.[27] The Author’s argument revisits the historical debate, claiming that Greeks and Egyptians were once the highest and most advanced races in terms of civilization and it is due to factors outside of their control that they had lost social dominance. In short, if genetic superiority determined dominance, then Greeks and Egyptians would still be considered the ideal races. The Author, in line with the slowly massing opposition to racial-sciences, believed that proponents of racial-science were biased in that they presupposed the Anglo-Saxon race as genetically superior due to their position in society.[28]

Ideas of race as a divisive measure to distinguish humans from one another were central to the debate on slavery. Despite growing opposition challenging the legitimacy and impartiality of racial-sciences, there was general consensus on the genetic inferiority of Africans. While advocates of slavery took the supposed inferiority of Africans as justification of slavery in conjuncture with Biblical interpretations, abolitionists were largely concerned with the moral and humanitarian implications of the cruelties of slavery as opposed to the “unity of the human family”. The debate was primarily reduced to whether the supposed genetic inferiority of Africans was inherent and fatal, or circumstantial and reconcilable.

Bibliography

Primary

Editor. "The Inferior Race - a Question for the Times." Newark Advocate, February 10 1860.

Grayson, W.S. "Canaan, the Negro: Have We a Servile Race?" The Daily Mississipian, September 13 1862.

Unknown. "Ethnology, or the Races of Men." Scientific American 12, no. 11 (1856): Column B.

———. "Slavery, Its Origin and Its Remedy." The North American Review 92, no. 191 (1861): 492-515.

Secondary

Carrigan, William D. "In Defense of the Social Order." American Nineteenth Century History 1, no. 2 (2000): 31-52.

Dunkley, David A. Agency of the Enslaved. 1st ed. Lexington: Lexington Books, 2012.

Gossett, Thomas F. Race: The History of an Idea in America. New York: Oxford Univesity Press, 1996.

Hamilton, Cynthia S. "'Am I Not a Man and a Brother?' Phrenology and Anti-Slavery." Slavery and Abolition 29, no. 2 (2008): 173-87.

Longton, William Henry. "The Carolina Ideal World: Natural Science and Social Thought in Ante Bellum South Carolina." Civil War History 20, no. 2 (1974): 118-34.

Muir, Donal E. "Race: The Mythic Root of Racism." Sociological Inquiry 63, no. 3 (1993).

Rusert, Britt. "Delany's Comet: Fugitive Science and the Speculative Imaginary of Emancipation." American Quarterly 65, no. 4 (2013): 799-829.

Tomlinson, Stephen. Head Masters: Phrenology, Secular Education and Nineteenth Century Social Thought. 1st ed. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2013.

Tucker, William H. The Science and Politics of Racial Research. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

1


[1] William Henry Longton, "The Carolina Ideal World: Natural Science and Social Thought in Ante Bellum South Carolina," Civil War History 20, no. 2 (1974): 119.

[2] William D. Carrigan, "In Defense of the Social Order," American Nineteenth Century History 1, no. 2 (2000): 33-35.

[3] Thomas F. Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (New York: Oxford Univesity Press, 1996). 146-47.

[4] William H Tucker, The Science and Politics of Racial Research (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994). 17-20.

[5] Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America: 149.; Longton, "The Carolina Ideal World: Natural Science and Social Thought in Ante Bellum South Carolina," 123-24.

[6] Longton, "The Carolina Ideal World: Natural Science and Social Thought in Ante Bellum South Carolina," 121.

[7] Cynthia S. Hamilton, "'Am I Not a Man and a Brother?' Phrenology and Anti-Slavery," Slavery and Abolition 29, no. 2 (2008): 176.

[8] Ibid., 174.

[9] Longton, "The Carolina Ideal World: Natural Science and Social Thought in Ante Bellum South Carolina," 130.; Stephen Tomlinson, Head Masters: Phrenology, Secular Education and Nineteenth Century Social Thought, 1st ed. (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2013). 66, 143.

[10] Hamilton, "'Am I Not a Man and a Brother?' Phrenology and Anti-Slavery," 174-75.

[11] W.S. Grayson, "Canaan, the Negro: Have we a Servile Race?," The Daily Mississipian, September 13 1862.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14]Carrigan, "In Defense of the Social Order."; Longton, "The Carolina Ideal World: Natural Science and Social Thought in Ante Bellum South Carolina."; Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America.

[15] Editor, "The Inferior Race - A Question for the Times," Newark Advocate, February 10 1860.

[16] David A. Dunkley, Agency of the Enslaved, 1st ed. (Lexington: Lexington Books, 2012). 191-201.

[17] Editor, "The Inferior Race - A Question for the Times."

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.; Longton, "The Carolina Ideal World: Natural Science and Social Thought in Ante Bellum South Carolina," 131.

[20] Editor, "The Inferior Race - A Question for the Times."

[21] Tomlinson, Head Masters: Phrenology, Secular Education and Nineteenth Century Social Thought: 361.; Hamilton, "'Am I Not a Man and a Brother?' Phrenology and Anti-Slavery," 176.

[22] Unknown, "Slavery, its Origin and its Remedy," The North American Review 92, no. 191 (1861).

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Britt Rusert, "Delany's Comet: Fugitive Science and the Speculative Imaginary of Emancipation," American Quarterly 65, no. 4 (2013): 810-11.: Tucker, The Science and Politics of Racial Research: 17.

[26] Rusert, "Delany's Comet: Fugitive Science and the Speculative Imaginary of Emancipation," 811.

[27] Unknown, "Ethnology, or the Races of Men," Scientific American 12, no. 11 (1856).

[28] Donal E. Muir, "Race: The Mythic Root of Racism," Sociological Inquiry 63, no. 3 (1993): 344.

上一篇:demand for Housing 下一篇:Creative about recruiting