Negroes and Negro "Slavery:" the first an inferior race: the latter its normal condition.Van Evrie, John H.
History
Negroes and Negro "Slavery:" the first an inferior race: the latter its normal condition.
Van Evrie, John H.
African Americans; Slavery -- Justification; Slavery -- United States
The importance of education, of cultivation, the refinement of mind and
manners, the possession of wealth, of family influence and social
distinction, may all be duly appreciated, as all have their value or
social consideration, but where there is a _natural_ substratum of
society, where a different and subordinate race are in juxtaposition,
where negroes exist in any considerable number and in natural relation
to the whites, then it naturally follows that the great natural
distinctions fixed forever by the hand of the Almighty become the
dividing lines and the fixed landmarks of the social order.
This radical change in the mental habits of all brought face to face
with the negro; this instinctive consciousness of their own natural
equality that accompanied their perception of the negro’s inferiority;
in short, this development of the democratic idea to which Mr. Jefferson
gave such grand expression in the Declaration of Independence, was and
is accompanied by corresponding uniformity or harmony of interests.
Agriculture, labor, production, was and is the one great dominating
interest of Virginia and of all other communities made up of these
diverse social elements. It is impossible to divide the interests of
“master” and “slave”—of the white man and negro—when placed in natural
relation to each other. It is the utmost interest of the master to treat
his “slave” kindly, to care for him in sickness, to feed him well, and
not to overwork or abuse him, and it is the utmost interest of the
latter to be faithful to the former. It is a sort of partnership, a
species of socialism, when the brain of one being and the hands of fifty
other beings labor for the common good, for the general welfare; and
though possible exceptions are found where a brutal master beats and
abuses his people, or a worthless “slave” runs off and hides in the
swamp, both alike injure themselves, the master gets less work from his
“slave,” and the “slave” brings upon himself a corresponding evil. The
so-called “non-slaveholder,” if an agriculturist, has the same interest;
he is also a producer, and can not separate his interests from the
“slaveholder,” which, perhaps, he was himself yesterday, and may be
again to-morrow. If he be a mechanic, a lawyer, physician, or merchant,
then, though not identified as a producer with the “slaveholder” or
“non-slaveholder,” and in a sense may be said to have different
interests, these interests do not and can not conflict with the former,
unless, as in the Northern States, government is called on to “protect
labor.” But as government is confined to its legitimate sphere in
Virginia and most other Southern States, and protects all, without
favors to any, there is then no conflict of interests, even when some
are engaged in widely different pursuits from the one great common
interest of production. There is, therefore, universal harmony in
Southern society; the interests of master and “slave” are entirely
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account