Fredrick Douglas vs. George Fitzhugh

Leading up to and during the civil war, one very clear disagreement was what should happen regarding slavery. On this topic there were two contrasting sides, one in favor of slavery and the other against. There were many spokespersons for each perspectives, two of whom were Fredrick Douglas and George Fitzhugh. Each posed a convincing argument, with Douglas against and Fitzhugh in favor of slavery.

Fredrick Douglas, once trapped in the unfortunate position of slave, posed a powerful argument, though its lack of educated tone took away from his apparent credibility when compared to Fitzhugh. Douglas argued that African-Americans were just as American as any other citizen; most of them had been born in the country, and this was where they belonged. There was no necessity for concern regarding what to do with the African-Americans; there was no need to do anything about them. America was their home, where they belonged, and previous interference from the whites had only led to negative effects. He begged the white man to leave African-Americans alone, to simply let them be and if it ended badly then so be it. While his meaning was inspired and convincing, his wording made the argument sound almost whiny and childish; repeating a desire for total independence seemed to demonstrate a lack of ability to handle such. No one can survive totally independent of the rest of the world, and to request that blacks be permitted to live completely seperate from whites, yet in the same location, was completely unrealistic and thus far from convincing. Spoken, this argument would have been powerful; written, however, Douglas lacked the skills required to transfer the inspired tone into the words while keeping the sense of dignity.

Fitzhugh, however, posed an immensly convincing argument, if one's mind was not made up. Fitzhugh's writing was calm and well-written, and described blacks as being benefitted by slavery. As slaves, they lacked responsibility, and therefore lacked any cause for stress. Blacks recieved food, shelter, and purpose through their enslavement, while white men were left to all the true work, specifically the handling of mental and emotional burdens. All whites asked in return was assistance on the farm, claimed Fitzhugh. Fitzhugh further stated that African-Americans lacked the intelligence or ability to handle independence; free in a white world, Fitzhugh claimed, African-Americans would be unable to make their way. They were like children, needing to be led and directed at all times. Fitzhugh's paper was written convincingly, and though today we know better, at the time of Fitzhugh's writing this argument would have been startlingly convincing.

While Douglas's point was the right one, the one we agree with today and hope will continue to be seen as correct, his wording ruined the argument. If anything, Douglas seemed to prove Fitzhugh's point that slaves were like children through his rather whiny, immature tone. Fitzhugh, however, made a better argument; word choice was excellent, phrasing was educated, and his description of slavery, had it been accurate, would have left us with a true understanding of when not having to make decisions could be the better option.

Unfortunately, Fitzhugh's argument was better. While today we are far more inclined to agree with Douglas, Fitzhugh's argument fit the time and was well written, giving an impression of superior intelligence. Perhaps if the two arguments had been written with the opposite balance of skill the end would have been more interest. While today our perspectives have changed, in their day and time Ftzhugh was turly the better writer and more experienced debater.