James Henry Hammond -- Letter to an English Abolitionist, 1845

What is the author arguing?

English abolitionists have criticized slavery and have fought for the emancipation of slaves in America. Slaveholders have defended slavery with courage against all attacks from abolitionists. James Henry Hammond – South Carolina planter and politician – writes a letter responding to these attacks from abolitionists. He starts off by with an abolitionist quote, “that man cannot hold property in man”, and answers to it by saying that “he can and actually does hold property in his fellow all the world over, in a variety of forms, and has always done so”. With this, Hammond, argues that slaves are not only held in America but all over the world; slaves have existed in different varieties for so long that it is just fine to continue using them. Hammond’s responds to abolitionists attacks in a precisely yet methodical way.

How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos with their arguments?

Hammond appeals to logos by using Biblical references to validate the purchase and ownership of slaves. On the third paragraph of this letter, Hammond notes, “Let us open these Holy scriptures…You cannot deny that God especially authorized his chosen people to purchase “bondmen forever” from the heathen as recorded in the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus, and that they are there designated by the very Hebrew word used in the tenth commandment”, meaning that chosen people had the “privilege” to purchase “bondmen forever” and so why should we suppose that Slavery is contrary to the will of God?

The appeal to pathos was the argument of slavery not only being held in America but also all over the world in different varieties of people and different treatment. As a slaveholder he acknowledges his obligations to treat his slaves with proper kindness since a great amount of profit comes from them; to give and receive. Hammond affirms that Englishmen have people of their own race and color living more miserably than slaves in America, and why not emancipate them? “Could our slaves but see it, they would join us in lynching the abolitionists”, Hammond argues that if slaves were to see the treatment that the English give their fellow-citizens then they will be on their side approving slavery. He then goes on by saying, “Never did a slave starve in America”.

As for ethos, Hammond was a prominent South Carolina Planter and politician—who served a term in Congress. He was the owner of a large plantation and of slaves. At the time he wrote this letter he was the governor of his state, which gave him the respect of others and allowed him to publish this on the Columbia Newspaper. Therefore, he was respected because of his position and many people gave credit to this letter.

What was the historical significance/relevance of this document?

Letters like these were going back and forth from slaveholders to abolitionists. Slaveholders wrote to defend themselves from the critics of abolitionists. Biblical scriptures were to either defend slavery or to argument against it. Each document has a historical significance/relevance because due to differences they had about slavery is what brought them to Civil War. Now, this letter might have a higher significance because it came from a state governor at that time, James Henry Hammond.

Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

His argument was convincing when he points out that Englishmen also did wrong in having workers of their own race and color living in worse conditions that of the slaves in America. ‘He proved this by quoting from a British report and giving examples of the terrible working conditions experienced by some free laborers in England’. However, it is not convincing when he tries to use Biblical scriptures to defend slavery. The scripture quoted by Hammond where he says that the chosen people are authorized to purchase “bondmen forever” can be interpreted in a variety of ways but in this case I think he used it for his own convenience.

Who Rushed for California Gold?

In the fall of 1848, James Marshall made a discovery that would impact, not only the United States, but people from different nationalities. The news of gold being discovered in California reached East and young men were driven by the gold fever; Chinese, Germans, Mexicans, Irish, and people of many other nationalities set out to look for gold. But it was not all fun and games, for the Anglo-American prospectors no foreigner had a right to dig for gold. In 1850, California legislature passed the Foreign Miners’ Tax Law, which gave high taxes on non-Americans. For Native Americans, the gold rush was a catastrophe. Their population decreased, they were being exploited and were victims of wholesale murder. In the nineteenth-century historian Hubert Howe Bancroft described white behavior toward Indians during the gold rush as “one of the last human hunts of civilization, and the basest and most brutal of them all.”

1. People from different nationalities traveled to California in search for gold. What were the hardships they experienced? How were they treated?
2. How did the Gold Rush helped/benefit California state?

Declaration of Sentiments, American Anti-Slavery Society, 1833

What is the author arguing?

By the year of 1833, the United States had gone through many crises and one of them was the fight between the free states against the slave states. Therefore, in 1833, the American Anti-Slavery Society was formed to combat for the freedom of slaves. The author, William Lloyd Garrison, wrote the Declaration of Sentiments to argue that slavery is not only a crime but that it is also condemned by the Bible. He continues by stating that everyone, regardless of their skin color, should have the same rights and opportunities as the white race. Garrison notes on his declaration that due to having a dark complexion, slaves have no constitutional or legal rights.

How does the author appeal to logos, pathos, and ethos?

Garrison’s declaration shows an eloquent argument against slavery. He appeals to logos when he states that, “It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely, the sin is as great to enslave an American as an African.” He speaks for his ancestors; they did not have to go through slavery nor where they prohibited from knowledge and religion; they were not bought/sold like a piece of property and beaten by their masters. With his abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, Garrison gained respect. He showed empathy for those slaves and he worked fiery for their emancipation. He knew that it was against God’s will for a human to own another human.

What is the historical significance /relevance of this document?

The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded for the purpose of fighting for the liberation of slaves. They challenged the issue of slavery with the “Declaration of Sentiments”; this was one of the main arguments towards the abolition of slavery. It became a historical significance ever since they decided to establish this Anti-Slavery Society because they started to work so hard for equal rights and they knew this battle wouldn’t be an easy task, it was the beginning of a long debate of freedom versus slavery. Nowadays we can say that because of this declaration-among many others-we live in nation of equal rights.

Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

The argument is indeed convincing. It is very detailed and self-explanatory and, in addition to this, Garrison used reasonable facts and showed evidence of his own thoughts. It is a logical argument because slavery is not only anti-human but unethical. I do not understand how southern preachers used the Bible to justify slavery because it is wrong to treat a human as property, separating a husband from their wife and a child from their mother, it is simply cruelty.