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.