The Longest Memory: Chapter 11: The Virginian Summary & Analysis

In a series of editorials, beginning in December 1809, the editor of the local newspaper, The Virginian, discusses issues concerning slavery. Regarding the use of slaves’ physical punishment, the editor considers that violence in the name of a greater good—in this case, the maintenance of economic prosperity—is justifiable. Brutality, though, he notes, must never be the objective in itself. Rather, a man who remains an honest human being, capable of love and compassion, can remain perfectly dignified while choosing to whip a slave.

The next month, the editor discusses how much a seller should ask for a slave who is later discovered to be pregnant. He concludes that since it cannot be known whether the investment will be profitable—in this case, whether both mother and child will live—it would not be wise for the seller to increase the price. Rather, the slave owner should enquire whether he might receive a refund if mother and/or child die in childbirth.

In another editorial, the editor concludes that slaves can rightfully be separated from their family because Africans do not have the same capacity for love and affection as whites. Therefore, the family bonds that exist between them do not need to be respected, and each member of the family can be treated as a separate economic asset.

Discussing the punishment of runaway slaves, the editor considers two hundred lashes and restrictions on food to be fair, since this can also serve to dissuade potential runaways. He argues that, upon calculating the economic cost of a slave’s escape, it seems logical to punish the slave, even to the point of death, although excessive violence (such as the use of bloodhounds or showing the body as it rots) should be avoided. Punishment should provoke obedience and instruction, not anger and rebellion.

Concerning the use of old slaves who have worked all their lives but are too old to do so anymore, the editor argues against abandoning them off the plantation. He reasons that an old slave can instruct younger ones in obedience, even if he is no longer working. The example this slave sets is invaluable and should be considered an asset.

Despite considering that young female slaves are “a temptation to us all,” the editor concludes that sexual relationships with slaves should be avoided at all costs. It might be right, he explains, to experience lust, but to act on that lust must be forbidden, as relationships between a master and a slave can threaten the relationship between a master and his wife, or encourage the slave to demand greater rights. Therefore, a master should make sure to marry female slaves and keep them occupied with raising their children. As an example of the dangers of relationships between masters and slaves, the editor recounts a story he recently heard of an overseer whipping a young slave to death, whom he later learned was none other than his half-brother.

The editor discusses the compatibility of Christianity with slavery. He concludes that, while Christianity answers a spiritual need, slavery provides material well-being. Therefore, the two are perfectly compatible, as can be seen from the fact that over a century of slavery has not destroyed the Christian faith. He explains that the confusion between the two notions derives form the wrong view that slaves should take part in all aspects of the Christian faith. Instead, converting slaves to Christianity should always involve reminding them of the separation between masters and slaves, as well as their inherent inferiority due to their primitive, previous life in Africa.

The editor discusses whether slave management should be firm or kind. He describes each perspective: the kind approach considers brutality inhumane and unproductive, breeding discontent among slaves, whereas the firm approach defends the use of punishment for misbehavior. The editor concludes that a balanced approach should be used, in which fairness is defined as the defense of the plantation’s interests. Because of this, slaves do not necessarily have to live miserably for the plantation to profit.

When asked whether slavery will end, the editor understands the two sides of the answer. On the one hand, he believes that slavery will always be needed because work in the fields will always be necessary for the economic system. On the other hand, technological advances might make slaves’ work obsolete, as cheaper modes of producing goods might make slavery too expensive. The editor concludes that this will not take place in the next couple of generations, but also worries about the increasing number of freed slaves in society.

When the editor receives a letter from a mysterious Miss L. (Lydia) who asks whether it might be more profitable to pay black people for their labor, he takes her question seriously, considering questions of supply and demand. However, he ultimately concludes that the profitability would depend on factors such as the number of slaves on the plantation, and that, since profitability might not be guaranteed in all cases, the idea of paying blacks should be rejected as too impractical.

Miss L. (Lydia) replies to the previous editorial, arguing that slavery is full of fluctuations, and that she has recently noticed that an increase in costs at her father’s plantations has not been accompanied by increasing profits, which suggests that slavery might bring diminishing returns. The editor argues that the rising costs might be related to other factors than the inevitable decline of slavery, such as inefficiency on the plantation. In an authoritative voice, he admonishes her to avoid thinking that slavery should be considered an open market system or a system that is dying.

The editor relates an extraordinary event: he has received an extremely articulate letter from a literate slave who argues that The Virginian should include stories written by slaves themselves. Despite being surprised at discovering that blacks also read this newspaper, which he did not think was possible, the editor is open to this idea and asks his readers to write to him with their opinion. He concludes that he is not opposed to slaves’ literacy as long as it does not hamper the economic development of the plantation.

After the previous editorial, the editor receives an overwhelming “no” from his readers. He notes that he received two divisive letters within the same family. The father argued slaves’ literacy would only increase their discontent and is therefore unethical, whereas the daughter argues that literacy makes slaves—and, in general, everyone—better people. Without necessarily agreeing with her, the editor lauds the young girl’s idealism, concluding that the young will be the ones to design the future.

The editor receives a letter from the deputy of an overseer complaining about the conditions of poor whites, who are sometimes barely above the condition of slave and who feel that some free blacks enjoy a better life than some whites. He turns his sentiment of injustice into a direct (if imaginary) threat when he imagines that poor whites might kill all the blacks, as well as the rich whites who did nothing to secure their future.

In the next editorial, many readers share the angry white man’s sentiment, feeling that society has all but forgotten poor whites. While the editor does not believe in resolving this problem in a violent way and trusts that people’s “Christian restraint” will keep them from doing harm, he does agree that whites should be treated better than blacks because of their inherent superiority.

The editor writes a vehement article criticizing interracial relationships, which he considers shocking and inacceptable. This leads him to worry about the future. He wonders what the product of such relationships will be, wondering if biracial children will claim equality with whites and what their place in the country might be. He compares this situation to relationships between masters and slaves, although he does note that there is a difference between free blacks and slaves.

In the next editorial, the editor criticizes Miss L.’s (Lydia’s) response to his views about interracial relationships, as she accuses the editor’s views of being unconstitutional. The writer defends himself by arguing implicitly that free speech and the expression of his worries is not unconstitutional. He insults her intelligence and her excessive “love for blacks,” which he believes keeps her from thinking about these issues rationally. He imagines that she might find herself in an interracial relationship, which would be her own fault.