Letter to An English Abolitionist, John Henry Hammond 1845

1. What is the author arguing?


       The author, John Henry Hammond, is arguing that slavery is not a sin, but completely approved by the bible and “It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that slavery is contrary to the will of God.”. The author also claims that it is inappropriate and wrong to “arouse the world against us by the most shocking charges of tyranny and cruelty” for “…our slaveholders are kind masters, as men usually are to kind husbands, parents and friends…” . He states that “ Slavery is truly the “cornerstone” and foundation of every well-designed and durable “republican edifice.” meaning that he truly believes slavery makes a strong government and without slavery, the government will fall apart.


2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

     Ethos: Hammond was a politician therefore, his job was to serve the people. When he says “But the question is whether free or slave labor is cheapest to us in this country, at this time, situated as we are.” it shows that he feels that if slavery was abolished, then the people would have no other form of labor to use that is as efficient as slavery. And being the politician that he is he felt that “ Slavery is truly the “cornerstone” and foundation of every well-designed and durable “republican edifice.”


     Pathos: The author used pathos when he says: “Now in Great Britain, the poor and laboring classes of your own race and color, not only your fellow-beings, but your fellow citizens, are more miserable and degraded, morally and physically, than our slaves…”. When he says this, the audience is moved by the description of some of Britain’s people’s lives compared to slave life in America, making others feel more sorry about the people of their own race and color and feeling less sympathetic for the slaves.

     Logos: “…. that the precise word “slave” is not to be found in the translation of the Bible.” is an example of how Hammond uses logos in his writing. He claims that, logically speaking, the Bible didn’t actually have the word “slave” in it, but the word “bondsmen” and that the abolitionist’s argument saying that slavery is condemned by the bible is invalid since it didn’t specifically say “slave”.
　

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?
     If I were as egotistical and ignorant as Hammond, the author’s argument would be very convincing to me since he did make a lot of strong points. As for the people of that time, the argument would have been very convincing because he used the bible in his letter, for example when the author wrote “Let us open up these Holy Scriptures…. You cannot deny that God especially authorized his chosen people to purchase “bondmen forever” from the heathen….Nor can you deny that a “BONDMAN FOREVER” is a “SLAVE”….that the precise word “slave” is not to be found in the translation of the Bible.” and “….their words not God’s meaning…” Since many of the people during that time were strictly biblical, his letter would have appealed to many people of the audience. He also states in his letter that slaves in America were living a better life than those in Britain. Though this was very biased, it would probably make a lot of people feel as if the slaves weren’t as helpless or mistreated as they thought.
     The historical significance of this document is that if this document, or any other document similar to this one wasn’t created, then slavery would have been abolished a lot sooner and there wouldn’t really be a civil war if none of the slaveholders felt so strongly about slavery and didn’t defend it.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?