South Carolina Senator James Henry Hammond gave a speech on the Senate floor on March 4th, 1858. Mr. Hammond was a Democrat, but I think it is pretty obvious that today he would be a Republican. See if you recognize anything in this excerpt of his speech that might still be believed today but is no longer said out loud (for the most part).
In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves by the common “consent of mankind,” which, according to Cicero, “lex naturae est.” The highest proof of what is Nature’s law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; slave is a word discarded now by “ears polite;” I will not characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal.
The Senator from New York [William Seward] said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name, but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when he repeals the fiat, “the poor ye always have with you;” for the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it; in short, your whole hireling class of manual laborers and “operatives,” as you call them, are essentially slaves. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South. We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositaries [sic] of all your political power. If they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than “an army with banners,” and could combine, where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands, but by the quiet process of the ballot-box. You have been making war upon us to our very hearthstones. How would you like for us to send lecturers and agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid in combining, and to lead them? . . . .
Transient and temporary causes have thus far been your preservation. The great West has been open to your surplus population, and your hordes of semi-barbarian immigrants, who are crowding in year by year. They make a great movement, and you call it progress. Whither? It is progress; but it is progress toward Vigilance Committees. The South have sustained you in great measure. You are our factors. You fetch and carry for us. One hundred and fifty million dollars of our money passes annually through your hands. Much of it sticks; all of it assists to keep your machinery together and in motion. Suppose we were to discharge you; suppose we were to take our business out of your hands; — we should consign you to anarchy and poverty. You complain of the rule of the South; that has been another cause that has preserved you. We have kept the Government conservative to the great purposes of the Constitution. We have placed it, and kept it, upon the Constitution; and that has been the cause of your peace and prosperity. The Senator from New York says that that is about to be at an end; that you intend to take the Government from us; that it will pass from our hands into yours. Perhaps what he says is true; it may be; but do not forget — it can never be forgotten — it is written on the brightest page of human history — that we, the slaveholders of the South, took our country in her infancy, and, after ruling her for sixty out of the seventy years of her existence, we surrendered her to you without a stain upon her honor, boundless in prosperity, incalculable in her strength, the wonder and admiration of the world. Time will show what you will make of her; but no time can diminish our glory or your responsibility.
I recognize an attitude about labor and about race. It’s still with us.
Some things never change, but one thing that has changed: 100 years ago our politicians, even the racist ones, could write clearly and with style.
One thing that hasn’t changed: our poor (white , black, or brown) are still essentially slaves in all but name. In this I agree with the good senator.
By “poor” he and Marx and Bakunin et al meant “propertyless.”
Property is theft.
Property creates the haves and the have-nots, the masters and the slaves.
How many dare such truths today among our classe politique?
Reading this post helped me to realize that MLK’s dream has come true in a perverse kind of way: A man is no longer judged by the color of his skin – he’s judged by the contents of his wallet.
The South have sustained you in great measure. You are our factors. You fetch and carry for us. One hundred and fifty million dollars of our money passes annually through your hands. Much of it sticks; all of it assists to keep your machinery together and in motion. Suppose we were to discharge you; suppose we were to take our business out of your hands; — we should consign you to anarchy and poverty.
This sounds to me like he’s calling the North “takers” and the South “makers.” Anyone else read it that way? Interesting that it’s the exact opposite today, even if what he claims was true then.
It was most certainly not true then either.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton
Resource owners, exploiting resource rent, always consider the intermediaries in subsequent parts of the value chain as “takers”. It is even embedded in the French word “entrepreneur” from “prendre, to take”.
From the perspective of the planter, the North sold him the slaves at a profit and bought his cotton at a low price. In return, he had the privilege of paying high prices for Northern manufactured goods and being looked down upon because he dealt on a day-to-day basis with Negroes. Beyond the attitudes of abolitionists, there was likely a lot of truth in the planters’ perception of Northern manufacturers and merchants. After all, they moved in the same social set, often were intermarried, and after the Civil War collaborated in the investments that built the so-called “New South”, moving textile mills from New England to the South, constructing railroads, developing Florida as an agricultural and tourist destination, capitalizing Texas ranching, and eventually underwriting the Southern oil industry. All the while reading intellectual articles about the “decadent South”.
Yet is is all a part of the same exploitative ecosystem.
I forgot to mention a familiar attitude towards immigrants.
An odd comment, because there is a big difference between legal and illegal immigrants. Those like myself who oppose illegals support legal immigration. The opposition to immigration per se and of all kinds is seldom seen. There are those who believe that we should examine the level of legal immigration. For instance, in 1995, the Jordan Commission on Immigration Policy recommended that we deport all illegals and that we lower the number of legal immigrants. You may recognize the name Jordan as Barbara Jordan, considered a great Democrat. She headed the commission. She recommended we deport illegals.
I stand with Barbara Jordan.
One day some historian of capitalism and slavery will clearly document the interconnectedness of the English colonial system that created the riches of the British empire, the United States, Canada, and New Zealand on the backs of exprorpriation of land and slavery that involved all participants in the ill-gotten business, even Puritans and Quakers.
James Hammond no more spoke for the South then than Lindsey Graham speaks for the South now. Both speak for the conservative plantation-business class that has most to lose if people wise up to the game. Princeton then, along with other elite schools (well all colleges were elite in the 1850s), and elite schools now, specialize in training the future captains of the plantations (including today’s information plantations) in this same condescension. It is universal boss-speak about being grateful you have a job.
Go talk to white cops in Chicago and Boston and New York and Philadelphia and Ferguson, Missouri.
It is an institutional national disease baked into our founding. Individualizing it for outrage or mockery never does undo the institutions; it actually strengthens them.
The major crime today is not bigotry; it is redlining.
You can see this anywhere there are labor disputes. There is a class of commentators who believe that “management is always right”. It’s not even a matter of being right really, it’s as if management is invested with some kind of divine authority which labor has no standing to even question. If ownership’s divine wisdom leads to the destruction of the company (of course ownership will be fine), that’s the sacred prerogative of ownership. The attitude is, you should be on your knees kissing ownership’s feet, no other posture is acceptable. It’s like a feudalistic attitude, where the unconditional allegiance that kings thought was there due has been transferred to ownership. In any case it’s illuminating to see this attitude it what is supposedly a democratic country.
I know that this is completely beside the point that you are making, but it ties into something I’ve been thinking over the past couple of years, so bear with me.
Take away the fact that he’s offering this from a decidedly racist point of view, and it is fairly spot on:
Throughout history, mankind has always had to oppress or subjugate other people in order to supply this ‘class’ of person. Whether it be based on birth, religion, race, etc. But with the growth of technology and automation more and more of these menial jobs are being handled by computers, machines, and robots. Going forward, these will fill the role of the class that Hammond is describing. And while it does require a certain amount of human infrastructure to develop and maintain these systems, that workforce is certainly not 1:1 with an un-automated workforce.
I think one of the most interesting challenges that faces us now and will only deepen as the decades progress is how we transition away from an economy based on labor. I think as a society we are ill equipped to handle this because the importance of the ideas of employment and work are so ingrained in our culture, and are made so intrinsic to an individual’s sense of self worth.
Anyway, just some food for thought.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems still to hold, argues that we will never transition away from society and economy based on labor. “Kids, clean your rooms” will never go away. Disorder requires the application of human intelligence and effort to be reordered no matter how many technological intermediaries you put into the process. In short, Ray Kurzweill is full of shit.
The human requirements for reciprocation and empathy argue that gifts of labor and performance of personal services will never go away.
The organization of labor as a commodity to be exchanged for other commodities, however is a culturally defended social contract. The composition of one’s skill sets and contribution of labor services is a culturally-informed and socially enforced pattern. It is quite humanly possible for one to dig ditches for one’s municipality, teach kids in school, manufacture useful objects, remove pests from agriculturally important food crops, write computer code, perform music, and research medieval manuscripts all as one’s contribution to society. Indeed, most of us would be more healthy in a lot of ways if we had that sort of variegated lifestyle. A monoculture of work turns out to be as dangerous to survival as a monoculture of genes.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which seems still to hold, argues that…
No it doesn’t. The 2nd law , properly applied, tells one exactly nothing about economics or the organization (or lack thereof) of society. Creation of order from disorder requires work, not human intelligence necessarily. It may eventually be possible for many if not all menial tasks to be carried out by “intelligent” machines (I prefer the term capable machines). This has nothing to do with the 2nd law and does not violate any other law of physics as far as I know.
It’s the category of “menial” task that is culturally defined.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Say, in the future, capable machines do all the labor required in our society, including building the capable machines. Hell, maybe they are even able to design new capable machines.
How does anyone get paid, so that they can buy the stuff the machines make?
The only thing I can think of is that the government taxes the crap out of the one guy who owns the machines, and then gives the money to everyone. Then they have enough money to buy the stuff the machines are making. Somehow though, that seems to violate some conservation law or something, but since tis is economics not physics, and value is just a human invention with no physical meaning…
Dammit, I probably should have taken more economics in school….
Don’t need to tax much of anything because the machines can build stuff without the problems of scarcity or too much money chasing too few goods and services. In other words, the past worries of inflation go away, and the government could just print money. If there was an issue of inflation, of course, then you could just tax some of it back.
Ideally, we would recognize that the previous ideas of economics were based on an assumption of scarcity that no longer exists. In such a world, we’d guarantee a minimum of the basics of living (food, water, clothing, housing) to everyone, and money would be reserved for paying for things that computers or machines can’t adequately and cheaply handle, such as art, innovation, or luxury.
Of course, what is actually going to happen is that the people with power under the current system will hold onto it as long as possible, bending the rules in their favor while taking advantage of the new abundance of cheaper labor, creating further separation between the privilege of wealth and the desperation of the masses.
But still, it is fun to think about a world in which people are free to pursue whatever endeavors they are passionate about without having to have them compromised by busting their ass just to get by. That’s a noble goal, and should we ever reach that day I can’t even imagine how many intellectual and artistic revelations would be in store for us.
Or everyone will just waste their lives away playing video games. But hey, maybe they’ll be happy.
A proper response, seven months later.
“They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, `You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.”
Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln-Douglas Debate, at Alton, Illinois, on October 15, 1858
This much is true:
The phrase wage-slave exists for a reason.
It’s interesting how things have reversed. Back then, white supremacists had no problem parading their racism as the purest received wisdom. No complex system of dog whistles and paranoid resentment for them. At the same time, they openly pretended that slavery was good for slaves, and to some extent thus to actually care about the welfare of slaves (although this was obviously a fraud). In our day, the same people (until the last couple years at least) pretended that not a whiff of racism was to be found in their politics. In fact racism has long since ended. MLK ended it. Or Bill Cosby did. Or Obama did. But they make no claim to care in the slightest for the welfare of the “slavery” class. Quite the opposite. Now the style is to righteously insist on punishing and humiliating the lower classes, to righteously pursue every policy that would make their lives harder and call that freedom
It’s amazing how much of our politics, all of it really on a national level, is about making sure that the wrong people (most of the 99%, but particularly the bottom half, the “47%”) are relentlessly punished and demonized for the crime of being poor, in the name of “freedom” and “liberty”.
Of course, behind the apparent divergence is the same basic attitude: the poor and disenfranchised get what they deserve, following some kind of cosmic order of social darwinism mixed with religious fundamentalism. In the slavery era, it was because they belonged to an inferior race. In our era, it’s because the money and power are imagined to naturally and invariably flow to the deserving and righteous. Maintaining dehumanizing inequality is then posited as actually beneficial to the underclasses as it teaches them their place in the cosmic order, which otherwise they might lose sight of, and attempts to ameliorate this cosmic order will lead to all kinds of spiritual and ethnic miscegenation which will destroy the very fabric of (an extremely fragile) reality.
This is from The Economist last week isn’t it?
I can’t recall the title of Vonnegut’s book. Player Piano? The one where the visiting foreign dignitary says everybody is a slave?