Review of “Cannibals All!” by George Fitzhugh

“Abolishing slavery leads to slaves without masters” – George Fitzhugh

For this book to make sense, you have to have read something like this book. Cannibals All is a defense of slavery in the American South. To understand Fitzhugh’s argument, you need to know what slavery in the American South was like. Unless you read something like Genovese’s book, you don’t.

Ok, assuming you’ve come that far, let’s discuss Fitzhugh’s work. Fitzhugh doesn’t come out and define slavery. I’m going to try to offer a couple definitions to help show where Fitzhugh stands on this issue, since without a definite term, we’re just talking past each other.

Everyone agrees that slavery exists when someone “owns” someone else. But what does “own” mean? This is the defining question of slavery – what constitutes ownership of another human being? It would be possible to define slavery as a legal system that allowed long-term, non-cancellable labor contracts. However, I think this would devolve into other possible definitions, particularly 1) as a government that can prevent such contracts is big enough to take your money. Let’s look at a few possible alternatives:

1) Some of the hardcore libertarians, like Nozick, have made a strong case that, in modern society, we’re all slaves. Ultimately, government owns our labor and it collects its ownership dues through taxation.

Note that under this definition masters have no obligations to slaves. Slavery is solely to the detriment of the slave and solely to the benefit of the master.

2) Mencius Moldbug channeling Carlyle has discussed slavery extensively. I hope I’m not interpreting him incorrectly in stating that he sees slavery as a constant in human society. Slaves – and this definition may owe more to Aristotle and Plato than Moldbug or Carlyle – are people who cannot support themselves. These people are dependent on others to support themselves and this dependency is slavery. The supporters of these people are their masters (even if the masters don’t choose to force the slaves into labor or place any other obligations on them). In short, the existence of the dependency creates a master/slave relationship.

Moldbug elaborated on this topic a bit when he discussed how an enlightened dictator would run California in order to maximize profit

The Dire Problem is that, while all the land in California is of positive value (since, for all its faults, the environmental stewardship of the late USG 4 [the current US
government] was excellent), the same cannot be said for its population. No king would allow his population quality to sink to such a state; no king has reigned in California for almost two centuries.

Many Californians – most Californians [here Moldbug assumes better of people that the ancient
philosophers] – are assets. That is: productive citizens, or children who will grow up and become productive citizens. Their place is the left side of the balance sheet. Their presence in California increases California’s productive power, and thus its value as a financial asset.

As the King begins the transition from democracy, however, he sees at once that many Californians – certainly millions – are financial liabilities [i.e. slaves in the dependent sense]. These are unproductive citizens. Their place on the balance sheet is on the right. To put it crudely, a ten-cent bullet in the nape of each neck would send California’s market capitalization soaring – often by a cool million per neck.

Note that under this definition of slavery, as understood by those who have advanced it, masters have an obligation to their slaves. Masters must provide for their slaves and slaves must do their masters’ bidding within the bounds of the legal rights given to the slaves. Further note that the rules governing the relationship between slave and master can be set by government and society.

3) Marxists have flirted with a definition of slavery that expands the notion of dependency. The second definition is extended to cover workers, if they become totally dependent on their employers for their means of living. This concept still has plenty of adherents, as evidenced by constant harping about “living wages” or “wage slaves.”

Note that under this definition of slavery, masters have almost no obligations to slaves beyond honoring the employment terms. A master must pay a wage, but that wage need not be sufficient to allow the worker to “live.”

These definitions are not mutually exclusive.

Slavery, as it existed in the South fits under definition 2), in Fitzhugh’s view. Slaves had no means of supporting themselves legally, but owners were required to (and had incentive to) provide for their slaves.

Fitzhugh’s book focuses on 2) and 3). Basically the book is a defense of 2) as a better institution than 3). Fitzhugh views 2) and 3) as the only options that America had at the time. You’ll see what this means shortly.

Be aware that slavery, as defined in 2), cannot be “abolished.” There will still be dependents in society that must be cared for, i.e. slaves. The only change is that now, no one has incentive to care for them.

I hope these definitions helped frame this discussion. Let’s proceed to Fitzhugh’s arguments.

Keep in mind that Fitzhugh does not believe that slavery is “abolishable.” He is arguing for a system of slavery that puts obligations on both masters and slaves against a system of slavery that puts obligations only on slaves. You may disagree with his argument, but this is his argument. Also remember that following abolition, Fitzhugh would be easily able to argue that he was correct. The argument that “freed” slaves were better off (or freer) after abolition is a tough argument to make.

Here Fitzhugh goes after the “Northern slave-owner:”

You, with the command over labor which your capital gives you, are a slave owner – a master, without the obligations of a mas­ter. They who work for you, who create your income, are slaves, without the rights of slaves. Slaves without a master [Cannibals All!]! Whilst you were engaged in amassing your capital, in seeking to become independent, you were in the White Slave Trade. . . .

Now, under the delusive name of liberty, you work him, “from morn to dewy eve” – from infancy to old age – then turn him out to starve. You treat your horses and hounds better. Capital is a cruel master. The free slave trade, the commonest, yet the cruellest of trades.

Later:

Rev’d Nehemiah Adams has a similar thought in his admirable work, “A South­side View of Slavery,” which we regret is not before us. On some public occa­sion in Charleston, he was struck with the good order and absence of all dissipation, and very naively asked where was their mob. He was informed that “they were at work.”

More:

Philosophy cannot justify the relation between the free laborer, and the idle, irresponsible employer. But, ’tis easy to justify that between master and slave. Their obligations are mutual and equal; and if the master will superintend and provide for the slave in sickness, in health, infancy and old age – if he will feed and clothe, and house him properly, guard his morals, and treat him kindly and humanely, he will make his slaves happy and profitable, and be himself a worthy, useful and conscientious man.

It keeps going:

Mr. Lester, a New York abolitionist, after a long and careful observation and study of the present condition of the English laboring class, solemnly avers, in his “Glory and Shame of England,” that he would sooner subject his child to Southern slavery, than have him to be a free laborer of Eng­land.

On “free” men:

But, in becoming free moral agent, he accepts the responsibilities of that condition; his path is open to virtue, but he is answerable for his acts and their consequences if he deviates into other ways; he can, by foresight, determine his lot, but he must, in compensation, suffer the penalties of his own improvidence.

This is true, unless of course it is tried and found wanting, in which case government could come in to protect the free man from his own decisions. But then, is he a free man? Fitzhugh would say no.

I’ll give Fitzhugh one last parting shot. Hopefully, whether you agree or disagree with his analysis, you at least understand it.

Your freemen at the North do the same work and fill the same offices [as slaves in the South]. The only difference is, we love our slaves, and we are ready to defend, assist and protect them; you hate and fear your white servants, and never fail, as a moral duty, to screw down their wages to the lowest, and to starve their families, if possible, as evidence of your thrift, economy and management – the only English and Yankee virtues.