Analysis Of The Philosophic Cock

1222 Words3 Pages

The political cartoon "The Philosophic Cock", drawn by James Akin, depicts Thomas Jefferson 's head on a large, strutting rooster. A hen with a black female 's face, presumably Sally Hemings, walks slightly behind staring adoringly at Thomas Jefferson. The caption for the cartoon reads "Tis not a set of features or complexion or tincture of a skin that I admire." This cartoon was drawn to decrease Jefferson 's political power by brining to light his illicit, long-term affair with his slave Sally, with whom he is alleged to have several children with.
The double entendre title serves to highlight Jefferson 's hypocritical actions when it comes to slave holdings. Publications, including "Notes on the State of Virginia", detail his view on Africans: …show more content…

The female’s slave stance, while not outwardly hesitant, looks submissive when compared to the more powerful stance the white man takes. She had no power to resist any advances made by her master, since she cannot disobey orders. If the slave on the right and left are both the same female figure, the message could be interpreted as female slaves having a twofold value: sexual value and physical labor value. Beyond these two obvious values, any child from a union between her master and female slave, because of the law stating that children take the status of the mother, would result in more slaves for the master, thus increasing his capital. This law put female slaves even more at risk for being sexually assaulted. The painting distinguishes between two different white men, the wealthy figure on the right, and the working farmer on the left. The title "Virginian Luxuries" could be referring to how the slave trade in Virginia, one of the largest slave holding states, brought satisfaction to all types of people. Wealthy men could have concubines or prostitutes, while farmers could get hard labor to work their farms. However, since many wealthy men in Virginia were plantation owners, the painting could be referring to how the slaves fulfilled both needs for a single …show more content…

Therefore, particular features of black people in contrast to white people is not the focus of these works. Rather, they focus on the behavior of the whites, in these cases Jefferson and the wealthy plantation owners. While the political cartoon is a direct critique on Jefferson, "Virginian Luxuries" seems more a critique on the entire institution of slavery. The title, so blatant, sounds almost sarcastic making the entire work appear to be criticizing white society for seeing humans as mere luxury objects. The critique on Jefferson is his hypocritical stance coming from the dichotomy between his writings and beliefs about blacks, versus his actions. However, the cartoon does not take a stance on whether slavery has negative or positive outcomes since the "dark sides" of slavery are not shown. "Virginian Luxuries", in contrast, critiques all of the slave owners, particularly in Virginia by exposing the negatives of slavery so blatantly that it is unavoidable. This type of display is highly unusual for this period, and because it was hidden, it was most likely not a popular opinion. During this period, it was much more common to believe in the "happy slave" as a justification to keep slavery, while this piece directly contradicts this myth. Overall, both pieces were critiques on members of white society, either through a direct critique of

Open Document