Sample Paper -- Unassigned Writer -- James Grainger

Two Views of Slavery

The eternal driver keeps a steady eye
On a black herd, who would his vengeance fly,
But chained, imprisoned, on a burning soil,
For the mean avarice of a tyrant’s toil!
The lengthy cart-whip guard’s this monster’s reign—
And cracks, like pistols, from the fields of cane.
Ye powers! Who formed these wretched tribes, relate,
What had they done, to merit such a fate! (803)

Negroes when bought should be young, and strong. The Congo-negroes are fitter for the house and trades, than for the field. The Gold-Coast, but especially the Pawpaw-negroes make the best field-negroes: but even these, if advanced in years, should not be purchased … The Minnahs make good tradesmen, but addicted to suicide. The Mundingos, in particular, subject to worms; and the Congas, to dropsical disorders … Some negroes eat dirt. (628)

The obvious contrast between the two paragraphs above constitutes the topic of this paper. The first was written by Philip Freneau in his poem “To Sir Toby,” the second by James Grainger in his introduction to his work, “The Sugar Cane: A Poem.” Both present very different opinions on the subject of slavery, and below I endeavored to compare the two views and possibly show the errors on Grainger's part. I also have included material from Sarah Wentworth Morton's work, “The African Chief,” which I think provides invaluable insight into these considerations.

James Grainger presents his view of slavery indirectly through his exaltation of the British Empire. His poem is divided into four sections with the fourth entitled “On the Genius of Africa,” in which he shows that slavery is the means by which the British Empire has achieved its greatness. This section is rather awkward at times, as he alternates between praise for England, some technical botanical descriptions, and a defense of slavery that is feeble at best.

Grainger's attitude towards blacks is callused and crude. He views them not only as mere property, but as being disconnected from humanity and valueless but for their ability. A black man's merit is determined solely by what he provides for the white man. This is demonstrated when he says: "Whether to wield the hoe, or guide the plane; / Or for domestic uses thou intend'st / The sunny Libyan: from what clime they spring, / It not imports; if strength and youth be theirs" (629). He sees them as merely a means by which Britain can prosper economically. Grainger neatly arranges them into a system, detailing which ethnicities are most suitable for what work, as shown in his words I quoted at the beginning.

Certainly Grainger advocates for the decent and humane treatment of slaves, but his reasons for doing so are sketchy. He says, "Let gentle work / Or playful exercise amuse / The novel gang: and far be angry words: / Far ponderous chains; and far disheartening blows" (631). He continues this train of thought by suggesting that they be allowed to eat certain fruits which "their arid skins will plump, their features: / No rheums, no dysteneric ails torment: / The thirty hydrops flies." This indulgence is by no means out of the kindness of Grainger's heart, but rather to ensure that the negroe's health does not interfere with his work.

The defense that Grainger makes for slavery is weak and ill-formed. He cites the Scottish, who force their slaves to work in mines, saying: "Nor, Negroe, at thy destiny repine / Tho' doom'd to toil from dawn to setting sun. / How far more pleasant is thy rural task, / Than theirs who sweat, sequester'd from the day, / In dark tartarean caves, sunk far beneath / The earth's dark surface, where sulphureous flames, / Oft from their vapory prisons bursting wild, / To dire explosion give the cavern'd deep, / And in dread ruin all its inmates whelm?" (632-33). In comparison, the slaves of the English are treated quite well, something Grainger uses to justify slavery. He goes as far as to say that slaves should be grateful for the care they receive from their masters, and asks, "How far more happy is your lot [with these compared]?" and enjoins them to "your pleasing task pursue."

Quite a different view on this is presented by Freneau. He vividly portrays the shame, suffering, and terror experienced by slaves and the callous cruelty of their owners. Referring to the latter, he says, "One, with a gibbet wakes his negro's fears, / One to the windmill nails him by the ears, / One keeps his slaves in darkened dens, unfed, / One puts the wretch in pickle ere he's dead: / This from a tree suspends by the thumbs, / That from his table grudges even the crumbs!" (803). I would suggest that Grainger is turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the realities of slavery, preferring to bury his head in the belief that because there are worse conditions for slaves, those who work the plantations are really better off. Freneau grasps the concepts of freedom and innate human rights much better than Grainger. He refers to the black people as made of "stuff determined to be free" (804). Grainger fails to, or refuses to, acknowledge that it is the enslavement of a human being that is morally wrong, not just the conditions in which the slave lives.

Freneau also makes a compelling argument against Grainger's main argument. Grainger claims that slavery is justified by the wealth and glory that its labor has brought to Britain. In the last few stanzas of the poem he calls England "Britannia, Neptune's favorite queen, / Protect'ress of true science, freedom, [and] arts…" and proclaims that "The British George now reigns, the Patriot King! / Britain shall ever triumph o'er the main" (645). Freedom for whom? Certainly not the colored race. Britain may have triumphed indeed, but oppression went hand in hand with her glory. Freneau responds with majestic scorn. He says, referring to the horrors and destruction of slavery, "Are such the fruits that spring from vast domains? / Is wealth, thus got, Sir Toby, worth your pains? / Who would your wealth on terms, like these, possess, / Where all we see is pregnant with distress— / Angola's natives scourged by ruffian hands, / And toil's hard product shipped to foreign lands. / Talk not of blossoms, and your endless spring; / What joy, what smile, can scenes of misery bring?" (803). Freneau appeals to a sense of justice, saying that wealth gotten by wrong means is not worth having at all.

Sarah Wentworth Morton says much the same thing in her work. She too calls to a sense of justice, compassion, and reason. In “The African Chief,” she causes the reader to feel the anguish and injustice that the slave experiences. When she says, "Does not the voice of reason cry: / Claim the first right that nature gave, / From the red scourge of bondage fly, / Nor deign to live a burdened slave!" (869), she is pointing out that man is not meant to live enslaved. Everything in human nature cries out against it, which she further demonstrates later in the poem when she describes the chief's final fight for freedom. She also points out that blacks have families, friends, heritages, and hopes, as she notes the horror felt by the slave as he watches his wife and friend die and his children cry on his "fettered knee."

Grainger is not entirely silent concerning this, though. He says, "Ye, planter, let humanity prevail. / Perhaps thy Negroe, in his native land, / Possest large fertile plains, and slave, and herds … /Perhaps he wails his wife, his children, left / To struggle with adversity … /Oh, did the tender muse possess the power; / Which monarchs have, and monarchs oft abuse: / 'twould be the fond ambition of her soul, / To quell tyrannic sway, knock off the chains / Of heart-debasing slavery; give to man, / Of every colour and every clime, / Freedom, which stamps him image of his God" (633-34). Grainger does not follow these stirring words with a charge to emancipate the slaves. Rather, he continues his poem with a lengthy list of all the ailments common to blacks. This not only demonstrates a lack of compassion and humanity on Grainger's part, but also works against him. Usually one cites the positions of his opponents to refute them, something he does not – or cannot – do.

Morton also makes an interesting argument that is oddly similar to Grainger's economically-minded patriotic appeal. She compares the fighting chief to heroes of both ancient Greece and from more modern history, including George Washington. Granted, Morton has the abolishment of slavery in America in mind, but her arguments can be applied in Britain's case as well. Referring to these military greats she says, "If these exalt thy sacred zeal, / To hate oppression's mad control, / For bleeding Afric learn to feel, / Whose chieftain claimed a kindred soul" (870). I say it is similar to Grainger's argument because she too appeals to a sense of civic pride in one's country and its honor. In her mind, the fight of the chief to maintain his liberty is equal to the fights of Washington and other leaders. Grainger uses civic pride in the wealth of Britain to justify slavery; Morton uses civic pride, as in that of the slave, to justify his freedom.

In conclusion, I think the arguments that Grainger uses are without merit or justification. Both Freneau and Morton soundly refute them with arguments appealing to reason, human rights, compassion, and patriotic honor. Reading only Grainger, one might unconsciously miss his tidy glossing-over of slavery. However, upon a closer examination of his reasoning and a comparative analysis of other authors, it becomes apparent that he is faulty in his thinking. Slavery is never morally justifiable. It opposes the design of God and the inclination of human nature and defies validity even by the pen, much less the practice.

(1537 words, 5.5 pages, double-spaced)