Across centuries, a constellation of thinkers—spanning ancient Greece to Victorian England—saw slavery not just as a labor system but as a transformative force, a gritty mechanism for hauling certain peoples from savage states into civilized life. From Aristotle’s natural hierarchies to Carlyle’s labor ethic, these minds—Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun, Sepúlveda, Montesquieu, Locke, Hegel, Kant, Mill, Carlyle, Fitzhugh, and Rousseau—wove a tapestry of arguments about how slavery could forge order, impart skills, and integrate outsiders into refined societies. Their ideas, born in eras where servitude was woven into the social fabric, crisscross in surprising ways, revealing a shared belief in progress through subjugation. This essay traces their interwoven perspectives, unpacking the nuts and bolts of how they thought slavery worked as a cultural crucible, less concerned with its absence today than with the machinery they claimed it set in motion.
The roots of this notion stretch back to Aristotle, who saw the world as a ladder of natural roles. In his Politics, he pegged some folks—often non-Greeks—as natural slaves, their minds too dim for self-rule. For him, slavery wasn’t just handy; it was a civilizing engine. By tethering these barbarians to a wiser master, it gave them structure, a daily grind that taught obedience and purpose while letting the elite ponder higher things like philosophy. Jump forward to Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in 16th-century Spain, and you see echoes of this. During the Valladolid debate, he leaned on Aristotle to argue that Indigenous Americans—wild pagans in his eyes—needed chains to learn Christian order. Slavery, he figured, drilled discipline into them, swapping idolatry for faith and raw survival for a place in Spain’s grand hierarchy. Both men saw it as a kind of tough love, a system where the enslaved got a leg up by mimicking their betters, step by brutal step.
This idea of slavery as a cultural conveyor belt pops up again with Ibn Khaldun, the 14th-century Arab historian. In his Muqaddimah, he tracked how rough nomadic tribes conquered settled folks, then soaked up their polish—often through servitude. Enslaved captives didn’t just toil; they learned city ways, picking up language, crafts, and customs from their masters until the line between savage and civilized blurred. It’s a slow burn, not unlike what George Fitzhugh, a 19th-century American, pitched in Cannibals All!. He claimed African slaves in the South traded barbarism for a cozy spot under white planters, their labor in cotton fields schooling them in a stable, hierarchical world. For both, slavery was a classroom of sorts, its mechanisms grinding down tribal chaos into something structured, even if the pupils had no say in the lesson plan.
Then there’s the labor angle, where Thomas Carlyle and John Stuart Mill meet in unexpected ways. Carlyle, in his 1849 Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, raged that freed Jamaicans lazed about, wasting their potential. Slavery, he insisted, forced a work ethic on them, turning idle savages into productive cogs—a moral and economic win. Mill, more measured in On Liberty, agreed that backward peoples needed a firm hand. He saw despotism, including slavery, as a boot camp for civilizations not yet ready for freedom, teaching them punctuality, industry, and law through rote obedience. Their overlap is striking: both figured hard labor under a whip was the ticket to civilizing habits, a practical drill that stuck where lectures wouldn’t. Charles de Montesquieu chimes in here too, from The Spirit of the Laws. He tied slavery to hot climates, where laziness reigned unless checked by force—enslavement kicked those societies into gear, making them industrious by necessity.
But it’s not all about sweat and imitation; some saw slavery as a grand historical gearshift. Hegel, in his Philosophy of History, cast Africa as a savage backwater, outside history’s flow until yanked in by European chains. For him, slavery was a messy but vital spark, exposing these peoples to rational systems—courts, trade, technology—that they’d otherwise miss. It’s a cosmic take, mirrored by Immanuel Kant’s Anthropology writings, where he pegged non-Europeans as morally childish, needing a stern guardian to grow up. Slavery, Kant hinted, could be that guardian, instilling reason through servitude until they could stand alone. John Locke’s twist in his Second Treatise fits here too: he okayed slavery for war captives, reckoning it swapped tribal anarchy for a taste of property-based order. Together, they paint slavery as a historical shove, its mechanisms jolting stagnant cultures into the stream of progress, whether through law, logic, or land.
The gears of this machine get more intricate with thinkers blending the practical and the philosophical. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in Discourse on Inequality, romanticized the noble savage but admitted some societies stalled without a jolt—slavery could be that jolt, breaking their inertia with forced exposure to complex ways. It’s a reluctant nod, not far from Montesquieu’s climate-driven logic: where nature lulls, slavery stirs. Fitzhugh, though, saw it as a finished product—slaves in the South didn’t just learn, they belonged, their labor knitting them into a civilized web that beat their old cannibal chaos. Sepúlveda’s religious spin ties in too; he figured slavery’s daily grind—prayers, tasks, rules—rebuilt pagan souls into Christian ones, a spiritual upgrade via earthly toil. Across these views, the mechanism is clear: slavery as a cultural transplant, rooting new habits and beliefs through repetition and control.
Even the doubters add to the mix. Locke’s war-captive clause isn’t just punishment—it’s a civilizing swap, trading spears for plows under a master’s eye. Kant’s moral tutelage overlaps with Mill’s despotism: both saw slavery as a phase, a harsh apprenticeship that drilled civilized traits—duty, order, restraint—into raw material. Hegel’s dialectic nods to Ibn Khaldun’s cycles: conquest enslaves, slavery refines, rinse and repeat until the savage is history. Carlyle’s work obsession links back to Aristotle’s purpose-giving chains—labor as the thread that stitches wildness into society. It’s a web of cause and effect, where slavery’s daily grind, its imposed hierarchies, and its cultural osmosis churned out something new, or so they claimed.
Zooming in, the how of it all stands out. Aristotle’s slaves learned by doing—hauling stone, tending flocks—mimicking Greek ways until they stuck. Ibn Khaldun’s captives picked up Arabic and crafts in bustling cities, their kids born half-civilized. Sepúlveda’s Indians knelt at Mass, their old rituals fading under Spanish lash and cross. Montesquieu’s tropical sluggards turned fields under overseers, their sweat yielding crops and discipline. Locke’s captives built roads for Rome or Virginia, their hands shaping a world they’d join. Hegel’s Africans manned plantations, their toil feeding Europe’s Enlightenment machine. Kant’s wards absorbed ethics through servitude, Mill’s through labor camps, Carlyle’s through sugar fields—each a cog in a system that, they argued, hammered savage edges into civilized shapes.
The connections tighten further. Fitzhugh’s plantation harmony echoes Aristotle’s natural fit—slavery as a slot where everyone belongs, learning their place. Rousseau’s disruption aligns with Hegel’s historical kick, both seeing slavery as a breaker of savage stillness. Mill and Kant, both Enlightenment sons, bet on reason emerging from forced order, while Carlyle and Sepúlveda, centuries apart, banked on labor and faith as twin civilizing rods. Ibn Khaldun’s slow assimilation prefigures Fitzhugh’s generational shift—slavery as a multi-act play, not a one-off lesson. Locke’s property game ties to Montesquieu’s industry push: both saw work under duress as the spark that lit civilized fire.
This isn’t about pretty ideals—it’s about the grind. Slavery, in their eyes, was a machine with teeth: it broke bodies but built systems. It marched captives from mud huts to marble halls, from war cries to work songs, from tribal feuds to tax rolls. Aristotle’s helots carved Athens’ glory, Sepúlveda’s converts filled Spain’s pews, Ibn Khaldun’s bondsmen spiced Baghdad’s markets. Montesquieu’s field hands fed empires, Locke’s prisoners paved colonies, Hegel’s slaves stoked history’s engine. Kant’s pupils learned duty, Mill’s order, Carlyle’s industry, Fitzhugh’s harmony, Rousseau’s jolt—all through the same raw tools: chains, whips, and time. They didn’t blink at the blood; they saw the blueprint.
So, this brief essay sprawls across their minds, not boxed by name but tangled by vision. Aristotle kicks it off with nature’s nudge, Ibn Khaldun tracks its grind through history, Sepúlveda blesses it with God. Montesquieu maps its geography, Locke its justice, Hegel its destiny. Kant and Mill polish it with reason, Carlyle and Fitzhugh cheer its sweat, Rousseau shrugs at its chaos. Together, they sketch a world where slavery wasn’t just power—it was progress, a messy, creaking lever that, they swore, lifted the savage into the light. Whether it worked as neatly as they dreamed is another tale, but the mechanisms—labor, mimicry, hierarchy—were, to them, the real gears of the climb.
References
- Aristotle. Politics. Translated by J. Barnes. Princeton University Press, 1984.
- Bernasconi, R. “Who Invented the Concept of Race? Kant’s Role.” In Race, ed. R. Bernasconi. Blackwell, 2001.
- Carlyle, T. Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Fraser’s Magazine, 1849.
- Farr, J. “Locke, Natural Law, and New World Slavery.” Political Theory, 36(4), 495-522, 2008.
- Fitzhugh, G. Cannibals All! Or, Slaves Without Masters. A.E. Miller, 1857.
- Goldberg, D. T. “Liberalism’s Limits.” Nineteenth-Century Contexts, 22(2), 203-216, 2000.
- Hanke, L. All Mankind is One. Northern Illinois University Press, 1974.
- Hegel, G. W. F. The Philosophy of History. Translated by J. Sibree, 1956. Dover, 1837.
- Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated by F. Rosenthal. Princeton University Press, 1958.
- Kant, I. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Translated by V.L. Dowdell, 1978. Southern Illinois University Press, 1798.
- Locke, J. Second Treatise of Government. Hackett, 1980, 1689.
- Mill, J. S. On Liberty. Penguin Classics, 1974, 1859.
- Montesquieu, C. de. The Spirit of the Laws. Translated by A.M. Cohler et al., 1989. Cambridge University Press, 1748.
- Pinkard, T. Hegel: A Biography. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
- Rousseau, J.-J. The Social Contract & Discourse on Inequality. Translated by G.D.H. Cole, 1973. Everyman, 1762.
- Ryan, A. The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Humanities Press, 1990.
- Sepúlveda, J. G. de. Democrates Alter. In Spanish Colonial Theory, ed. L. Hanke, 1974, 1545.
- Shklar, J. N. Montesquieu. Oxford University Press, 1987.
- Starobinski, J. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Transparency and Obstruction. University of Chicago Press, 1988.
- Wish, H. George Fitzhugh: Propagandist of the Old South. Louisiana State University Press, 1960.
