🐸 Citizen of the Internet 🐸
The argument given to refute Fitzhugh at the time, was that as America was growing, no man need stay in one job, he can find work anywhere and go west if he can. The other belief was free labor creates pride in work, creates families and upward mobility. This was one reason during the Civil War Lincoln passed the Homestead Act, the Act having two purposes. ONE It alleivated the stress caused by working poor and immigrants by promising them 500 acres for free if they merely lived there and improved it for five years. TWO Homesteaders would solve the food supply issue for railroad construction, army expansion, and the construction of forts and towns. You needed farmers growing stuff to provide food for people and animals alike. I would think if you could look at it from a person's level in say 1870, you could say that yes there was unlimited growth because so much country was wide open, even Florida was largely frontier. The whole thing that Lincoln and the Republicans, then as well as now, built their concept on the idea of unlimited growth and invention which would lead to the betterment of man. Today in 2022 we see that was wrong. Because we live on a finite planet in a finite nation with a finite amount of water and arable land and there are limits to growth. About 1900, with the frontier closed you began to see the wage class become of importance. The extreme Jewish exploitation of the working class in the United States, didn't begin until the 1880's and then the workers exploited were largely immigrants. Thing was it expanded and poisoned the entire system. What we know as the soul crushing wage slavery of 2022, came about in its present form with the Postmodern Deindustrialization switching us to a Service Economy in the late 1960s early 1970s. At the same time, we obviously did by that point reach the limit of growthGood point but Virginia was the economic and political center of gravity of the colonies so you can argue they set the trend. It would make sense that it would take many decades for that trend to take hold in the rest of the colonies.
On a podcast recently, E Michael Jones suggested that a lot of white slaves were worked to death in order to turn Connecticut into farmland. Connecticut was a rain forest covered not just in trees, but also rocks and boulders deposited there after the glaciers receded. The only way that kind of land could have been made useful was through massive amounts of human labor.
Basically, that's what the Jews and northern factory owners were doing, by creating debt and wage slaves. So when you look at it in that light, Fitzhugh's attitude seems quite reasonable. One has to ask, which is worse? Chattel slavery, or debt/wage slavery? At least the owners of chattel slaves get put into a position to actually care for the humans in their charge, as they literally have to live with them all the time. As Anglin has pointed out, back in the 1920s when historians decided to interview as many former slaves as they could before they died in order to get their thoughts down for the historical record, most of them thought being a plantation slave was far better than what came afterwards.