ery and socialism, which the advocates of neither of these systems would be willing to admit. In common with the socialists he attacked the principle of free contract, considering its results as cruel as the war of the sword, or theft, robbery, and murder. A Southern plantation was an ideal type, he thought, of a socialistic society. The feelings and interests of the masters prevent undue pressure on the laborers; they are protected from the evils of competition and are assured employment and support. His only objection to socialism was, "that it will not honestly admit that it owes its recent revival to the failure of universal liberty and is seeking to bring about slavery again in some form."1 No effective combination of labor can be made, said Fitz-Hugh, until men are willing to surrender their liberty and subject themselves to a despotic head or ruler-"this is slavery, and toward this socialism is moving." This theory of Fitz-Hugh was not, it may be said, the philosophy of the great body of the pro-slavery school and cannot be taken as representative of them. His extremely radical ideas illustrate, nevertheless, one

1 Ibid. Fitz-Hugh favored providing for a system of entailment of property. "We need not fear the mad-dog cry of aristocracy. . . . We have the things, exclusive hereditary property and aristocracy, in their utmost intensity; let us not be frightened at the names." Fitz-Hugh was not alone in his radical theory. Governor Hammond, in a letter to Calhoun (1850), expressed the belief that "free government and all that sort of thing has been a fatal delusion and humbug from the time of Moses." Correspondence, p. 1212.

phase of the intellectual movement and as such are worthy of examination in the same spirit in which the theory of the radical Abolitionists is studied.

Such, then, was the character of the theory by which slavery was defended. The individualistic philosophy of the eighteenth century and of the Revolutionary period was rejected. The doctrine that all men are created equal was denied, and the possession of inherent and inalienable "natural rights" was disputed or the force of the doctrine weakened by interpretation. It was shown that political rights and civil liberty cannot justly be demanded by all, but belong only to those who possess intellect, morality, and political capacity. If this is true, then an inferior race or class unfitted for political life may properly and justly be held in a state of servitude by a class or race that is politically capable; and this servitude may properly extend to the entire abolition of civil and political rights, even of any legal status whatever. Such a system is not undemocratic, but on the contrary tends to foster the spirit of liberty and to develop free institutions to the highest degree of perfection, since the lower classes are eliminated from politics and the political people are composed of those of the highest grade and most capable of administering democratic government. The complete servitude of a lower class to a highly democratic ruling class is not only possible, as the ancient Hellenic

democracies conclusively show, but this is on the whole the most advantageous kind of a governmental-social structure that can be devised, especially when the slaves are taken from an inferior race, naturally unfitted for participation in political life.

As the Abolitionist crusade was a part of a worldwide humanitarian and philanthropic movement, so the pro-slavery theory had certain features in common with an intellectual movement of the time. The characteristics of the slavery apologists were those of the natural scientists rather than those of the philanthropists.1 The leaders in the defence of the slave system regarded human life as essentially a struggle in which the fittest survive, and thought that in spite of certain elements of cruelty in this process the system was on the whole beneficent in its results. They believed that they were among the fittest, holding their position by the authority of the inexorable fiat of nature, and they were not primarily interested in the elevation of the lower classes, or in the amelioration of their condition. Abolitionism, they regarded as sentimental, idealistic, and impracticable, classing it with socialism, spiritualism, freethought, anti-masonry, "teetotalism," and other 'isms" of the day. They justified themselves as practical men, viewing with impartial eye the actual

66

1 The method of argument employed by the slavery apologists was not, however, the same as that of the natural scientists. The pro-slavery reasoning was, to a great extent, à priori and deductive.

and inevitable conditions of social life and progress, perceiving the difficulty of reversing the operation of the laws of nature, and little disposed to tamper with movements in that direction. They regarded slavery as a social necessity decreed by the laws of nature, and they looked upon any c tempts to alter this state as wholly idealistic and impractical.

In conclusion, a few words may be said by way of summarizing the discussion. It is clear that at the bottom of the controversy between the radical Abolitionists and the pro-slavery party, there was a fundamental difference of opinion as to the nature of human liberty. The abolitionists thought that liberty is the birthright of all men; the defenders of slavery thought it the possession of those only who are fit. The Abolitionists thought that as far as rights are concerned, all men are created and should continue to be equal; and consequently they were bitter in their denunciation of the denial of these rights; the opposite party thought that rights do not belong to men simply as men, but because of the superior qualities, physical, intellectual, moral or political, which are characteristic of certain individuals or races. The Abolitionists argued, in accordance with their belief, that the negro ought to be put in possession of the original and natural rights which are justly his, and of which he is wrongfully deprived. The slaveholders contended that

the negro, being an inferior order of man, should be kept in a state of complete subjection for his own and for the general good. Thus in both theory and practice, there was an almost irreconcilable difference between the two parties.

Between the conservative anti-slavery element and the slave party there was a less marked contrast. Although these opponents of slavery declared that all men are born with certain rights, they did not demand complete equality for the races. It was therefore recognized that there must be a certain restraint of certain classes under certain conditions, and no demand was made for equal liberty or for immediate liberty for all members of the community. Between this group and the slavery party, the question was really one as to how far individual conduct may be regulated and for how long. The defenders of slavery insisted that the negro is entitled to no rights at all, politically speaking, and moreover that the nature of the black man is such as to make this status permanent. On the contrary, the anti-slavery party declared that a certain body of rights should be granted to every one-not necessarily full participation in the exercise of political functions, but at least something in advance of complete and permanent subjection to the will of a master. Upon this point the two parties differed sharply. Had the proslavery party been willing to grant the negro even a modicum of civil rights, and to concede and