In 1851, Dr. Samuel A. Cartwright, a prominent Southern physician, published a paper in De Bow’s Review, a widely circulated periodical in the antebellum South. Titled “Diseases and Peculiarities of the Negro,” the article articulated a pseudoscientific framework that sought to justify slavery by asserting fundamental biological differences between the white and African races. Cartwright’s claims were rooted in the era’s racial prejudices, dressed in the language of medical science, and aimed to reinforce the social and economic structures of the slaveholding South. His work not only reflected the pervasive racism of the time but also contributed to the intellectual scaffolding that upheld the institution of slavery.
Cartwright’s central thesis was that the white and African races were distinguished by profound “anatomical and physiological differences” that extended far beyond superficial traits like skin color. He argued that these differences were so significant that they necessitated distinct medical approaches: “Otherwise, their diseases cannot be understood.” According to Cartwright, the dark skin of Africans was not merely a physical characteristic but a symptom of a deeper, pervasive “darkness” that permeated their entire physiology. He claimed that “the membranes, the muscles, the tendons, … all the fluids and secretions… even the negro’s brains and nerves, the chyle and all the humors, are tinctured with a shade of the pervading darkness.”
This supposed biological distinction extended to skeletal structure, facial features, and even gait. Cartwright described African bones as “whiter and harder” and their faces as “thrown more upwards,” suggesting a structural divergence from white anatomy. He further noted a distinctive walking style, which he pejoratively termed “hopper-hipped,” as evidence of racial inferiority. These traits, he argued, collectively demonstrated that Africans were a “separate and debased race,” inherently incapable of self-governance. In his view, these biological deficiencies explained why Africans purportedly preferred autocratic systems, such as those led by “petty kings” or chieftains in Africa, or slavery in America, which he claimed offered “more tranquility and sensual enjoyment” than their ancestral systems.
Cartwright’s paper went beyond medical claims to assert that slavery was not only compatible with African nature but also an improvement over their traditional forms of governance. He argued that slavery “expands the mind and improves the morals” by countering the “natural indolence” he attributed to Africans, which he believed hindered their mental and moral progress. This paternalistic narrative framed slavery as a civilizing force, aligning with the broader Southern ideology that portrayed enslavement as a benevolent institution. By casting slavery as a natural and even desirable condition for Africans, Cartwright sought to absolve slaveholders of moral responsibility and silence abolitionist critiques.
As a physician who frequently treated enslaved people, Cartwright was familiar with the health challenges they faced, including fevers, skin diseases, and tuberculosis. However, he interpreted these conditions through a racial lens, insisting that they were unique to Africans and unrelated to similar ailments in white populations. For example, he distinguished “negro consumption” from the tuberculosis that afflicted whites, claiming the former was a distinct disease. In reality, “negro consumption” was likely malaria, a disease prevalent in the South but not racially exclusive. By ignoring similarities between diseases across racial groups and emphasizing perceived differences, Cartwright reinforced his narrative of racial separateness.
One of the most notorious aspects of Cartwright’s work was his invention of “drapetomania,” a supposed mental disorder that caused enslaved people to run away from their enslavers. Faced with the increasing number of runaway slaves, Cartwright had two options: acknowledge that enslaved people fled because they despised their bondage, or devise a pseudoscientific explanation to preserve his belief in the benevolence of slavery. He chose the latter, coining the term “drapetomania” from the Greek words drapetes (runaway slave) and mania (madness).
Cartwright described drapetomania as “a disease of the mind as much as any other species of mental alienation.” He offered no rigorous analysis of its causes, instead relying on vague assertions and biblical references. He suggested that the Old Testament provided guidance on governing enslaved people in a way that prevented escape, advocating for a balance between kindness and firmness. Enslaved people, he argued, should be treated “like children” with “care, kindness, attention, and humanity” but never as equals, lest they become “too familiar” and prone to rebellion. Conversely, excessive cruelty or neglect could also provoke escape attempts. The ideal approach, according to Cartwright, was to render the enslaved person “the submissive knee-bender,” a state of psychological subjugation that would “spellbind” them and prevent flight.
Cartwright identified early symptoms of drapetomania, such as “sulkiness” or dissatisfaction, which he viewed as precursors to escape. If these behaviors had an identifiable cause, he recommended addressing it through paternalistic measures. However, if the enslaved person appeared “sulky and dissatisfied without cause,” Cartwright advocated for corporal punishment, specifically “whipping them out of it” as a “preventive measure against absconding.” He framed this violence not as abuse but as a therapeutic intervention, sanctioned by biblical principles that permitted slavery and prescribed methods for managing enslaved people.
Cartwright’s work exemplifies the misuse of medical authority to uphold oppressive systems. By cloaking racist assumptions in scientific rhetoric, he provided a veneer of legitimacy to the dehumanization of enslaved people. His theories were not isolated but part of a broader intellectual movement in the antebellum South that sought to defend slavery against growing abolitionist sentiment. Publications like De Bow’s Review amplified such ideas, reaching a wide audience of Southern elites and reinforcing the ideological foundations of the slaveholding society.
Cartwright’s assertions about racial differences and diseases were not only scientifically baseless but also dangerous, as they justified inhumane treatment and dismissed the shared humanity of enslaved people. His invention of drapetomania, in particular, reveals the lengths to which pro-slavery advocates would go to rationalize resistance as pathology rather than a natural response to oppression. The legacy of such pseudoscience underscores the importance of critically examining how medical and scientific discourses can be weaponized to perpetuate injustice.
Dr. Samuel Cartwright’s 1851 paper in De Bow’s Review represents a disturbing intersection of medicine, racism, and ideology. By positing that Africans were biologically inferior and inherently suited to slavery, and by pathologizing their resistance as a mental disorder, Cartwright contributed to the intellectual justification of one of history’s greatest moral atrocities. His work serves as a stark reminder of the ethical responsibilities of those wielding scientific authority and the enduring need to challenge narratives that dehumanize and oppress.