That would be George Fitzhugh, in his 1854 book Sociology For The South Or The Failure of Free Society:
All kinds of fun quotes in that one:
"The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism. ""Domestic slavery in the Southern States has produced the same results in elevating the character of the master that it did in Greece and Rome. He is lofty and independent in his sentiments, generous, affectionate, brave and eloquent; he is superior to the Northerner in every thing but the arts of thrift. "
"We speak only of the usual and common effects of slavery and of equality. The Turk, half civilized as he is, exhibits the manly, noble and generous traits of character peculiar to the slave owner; he is hospitable, generous, truthful, brave, and strictly honest. In many respects, he is the finest specimen of humanity to be found in the world."
"ut the chief and far most important enquiry is, how does slavery affect the condition of the slave? One of the wildest sects of Communists in France proposes not only to hold all property in common, but to divide the profits, not according to each man's in-put and labor, but according to each man's wants. Now this is precisely the system of domestic slavery with us. We provide for each slave, in old age and in infancy, in sickness and in health, not according to his labor, but according to his wants. The master's wants are more costly and refined, and he therefore gets a larger share of the profits. A Southern farm is the beau ideal of Communism; it is a joint concern, in which the slave consumes more than the master, of the coarse products, and is far happier, because although the concern may fail, he is always sure of a support; he is only transferred to another master to participate in the profits of another concern; he marries when he pleases, because he knows he will have to work no more with a family than without one, and whether he live or die, that family will be taken care of; he exhibits all the pride of ownership, despises a partner in a smaller concern, "a poor man's negro," boasts of "our crops, horses, fields and cattle;" and is as happy as a human being can be. And why should he not? - he enjoys as much of the fruits of the farm as he is capable of doing, and the wealthiest can do no more. Great wealth brings many additional cares, but few additional enjoyments. Our stomachs do not increase in capacity with our fortunes. We want no more clothing to keep us warm. We may create new wants, but we cannot create new pleasures. The intellectual enjoyments which wealth affords are probably balanced by the new cares it brings along with it."
"Free laborers are little better than trespassers on this earth given by God to all mankind."
"In conclusion, we will repeat the propositions, in somewhat different phraseology, with which we set out. First - That Liberty and Equality, with their concomitant Free Competition, beget a war in society that is as destructive to its weaker members as the custom of exposing the deformed and crippled children. Secondly - That slavery protects the weaker members of society just as do the relations of parent, guardian and husband, and is as necessary, as natural, and almost as universal as those relations."
"The free negroes are no doubt an intolerable nuisance. They blight the prosperity of every village and of every country neighborhood where they settle. They are thieves from necessity, for nature has made them so improvident they cannot in health provide for sickness, in youth for old age, nor in summer for winter. Nature formed them for a climate where all their wants were supplied abundantly by her liberal hand at every season. We knew their natures when we set them free. Should we blame them, or censure ourselves? We knew they were not fitted for liberty, and yet conferred liberty on them. Our wiser ancestors made them slaves, because as slaves they might be made civilized, useful and christian beings. "
"A free negro! Why, the very term seems an absurdity. It is our daily boast, and experience verifies it, that the Anglo-Saxons of America are the only people in the world fitted for freedom. The negro's is not human freedom, but the wild and vicious license of the fox, the wolf or the hawk. He is, from the necessity of his nature, a very Ishmaelite, whose hand is against every man, and every man's hand is against him. It is as much the duty of government to take away liberty from those who abuse it, as to confer it on those who use it properly."
"We cannot believe that the Socialists do not see that domestic slavery is the only practicable form of socialism - they are afraid yet to pronounce the word.
An admirable proof and illustration of our doctrine, that slavery is communism, might be had by making all the working-men in England slaves to the land-holders, and requiring by law the land-holders to support them as we do our slaves. Would not, in such case, the working-men be joint owners of the farm? If the land-holders were also permitted to sell them, or remove them to the colonies where labor is scarce and dear, it would be an excellent bargain on both sides."
>>>”The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment, and attending to all domestic wants and concerns. Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form, of socialism.”<<<
Thanks for the source. I somewhat agree with the author, in respect that slavery might be a form “socialism”. But, if so, slavery is the worst form of socialism, not the very best. The highest form of socialism is the communist utopia that Marx envisioned, but which is impossible unless everyone becomes an angel, and “leadership” is abolished (e.g., no elite ruling class hogging all the resources).
Thanks for citing the source for me.
It’s not like I make things up. I have something called honor. :)