Individualism, Slavery, and the Right Side of History

There is no Equality without Individualism

Without individualism, to what exactly are men (human beings) equal to? Much more than a selfish idea that everyone should only serve themselves, individualism simply asks that we measure society at the level of the individual person as opposed to measuring it in terms of groups of people.

To be fair, most people are not interested in philosophical discussions. Most of us are much more interested in what we would call “practical” ideas. But what could be more practical than figuring out how we got rid of slavery?

This practical application of individualism can help us understand how important ideas are in creating our societies. And for the practical applications of individualism, few felt the impact as much as those who were enslaved in the United States. Philosophers and politicians on either side of the abolition arguments knew all too well that they were arguing over the principles of individualism.

Principles of Abolition

“In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me.” — Frederick Douglass in a letter to Thomas Auld, his former master

Like any intellectual endeavor, there was more than one line of thought as to why and how slavery should be considered and abolished. But one philosophy won in the end, not just through popularity, but its victory in practical terms with the abolition of slavery.

That winning idea continued the struggle toward human equality beyond the abolition of slavery and into the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. No historical figure embodied and lived those principles like the escaped slave, American intellectual, brilliant orator, and larger-than-life champion of abolition, Frederick Douglass. 

Frederick Douglass started out as a loyal disciple of his mentor, famous abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who looked upon the Constitution as “a Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell.” Garrison saw the Constitution as a document that needed to be rejected in order to secure the freedom of slaves. Garrison went as far as burning a copy of the Constitution at the end of his fiery, damning speeches. At first, Douglass agreed with Garrison, but Douglass eventually not only changed his mind about the Constitution but also flipped the tables on Garrison.

Through careful readings of law and the founding documents themselves, Douglass gradually began reshaping his concepts of the Constitution. The greatest turning point came from his reading of a legal argument against slavery.

Lysander Spooner published the famous argument against slavery, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. Widely known for his anti-authoritarian and individualist political views, Spooner laid out the arguments that would lead Douglass to finally split from Garrison in his view of the Constitution, and proceed to wield the Constitution as an anti-slavery document.

“In order that the contract of government may be valid and lawful,” Spooner stated of these rights, it “cannot lawfully authorize government to destroy or take from men their natural rights; for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government — which is but an association of individuals — than to a single individual.”

“Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but interpreted, as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. “ — Frederick Douglas, July 4th Oration (emphasis mine)

Using the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Frederick Douglass would continue his orations and political activism, brandishing the words of the Founders as weapons against pro-slavery politicians and intellectuals.

Principles of Pro-Slavery

Leading the argument for slavery as a positive good for the United States was John C. Calhoun. Calhoun served in several political positions including two terms as vice president. 

In the argument for slavery, Calhoun would come up against Douglass’ views derived from both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. So what to do when you’re defending a peculiar institution in a country founded on principles laid out so clearly? What he did was reject the principles and the documents themselves. But he did not stop there.

Calhoun knew the depth to which these values of individual liberty were sewn into the fabric of the Founders’ ideas, so he attacked not only the Founders themselves but also went after their philosophical underpinnings. 

Calhoun said that the idea that “all men are created equal” was “the most false and dangerous of all political errors.” Understanding the origins of the philosophy of individual liberty, Calhoun said of Thomas Jefferson that philosopher John Locke’s ideas of individualism “had a strong hold on the mind of Mr. Jefferson.” Calhoun did not agree with this philosophy at all, as it undermined the logical arguments for slavery.

“The quantum of power on the part of the government, instead of being equal in all cases, must necessarily be very unequal among different people . . .” — John C. Calhoun

Calhoun was not alone in his assertion that the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were antithetical to slavery. In 1854 George Fitzhugh published Sociology for the South, which was a defense of slavery in economic and political terms. Fitzhugh’s ideological defense of slavery soon became the heart of the argument for slavery, which mirrored much of Calhoun’s arguments.

His book of pro-slavery ideas became the pro-slavery bible of those who rallied against abolition. In the Southern Literary Messenger, Fitzhugh’s book was described as planting “on firm basis of philosophical reasoning, historical testimony and social experience,” the justifications for slavery, and “should be in the hands of every Southern man.”

There can be little question as to what side of the argument for or against individualism that pro-slavery advocates were on. Considering individual human rights would require them to abandon slavery.

Curiously enough the concept of individualism is now held up by some as a principle foundation of “whiteness.” This concept was highlighted by the Smithsonian Institute when they shared this document.

But once again, by attributing color to ideas which are really a consequence of cultural evolution, the Smithsonian made the same fundamental error that the original racists made. Culture and ideas are not genetic nor relegated to melanin. They are the property of humanity and should be sorted out based on their merits, then incorporated and shared for the benefit of all.

In the end, individualism as it is written in the DOI won out against competing ideas for the practical benefit of flesh and blood people. Preserving that foundation and understanding its importance will continue to pay dividends to us today and into the future.