The Civil War

[Colleen Thomas]

The thing that continually amazes me, is that people watch "North and South" or "Gone with the Wind" and that's the only image they have of the South before and during the civil war.

It just isn't so, folks.

Most people couldn't afford to own slaves. That's right, I said afford. They were an expensive type of property to own, plus extended upkeep, and it was an investment. Granted, they were looked on as property, and abuses went on, but if you put yourself in the place of a plantation owner of the time, and you spent what amounted to half your yearly income on a piece of property, are you more liable to mistreat that property, or take care of it?

The bad is what makes for interesting movies, and books, not the truth. Bad things happened, I'm not denying that. And, a slave, no matter how well cared for is still a slave, and yes, that's absolutely wrong, but don't assume that the shows and movies you see portray how it really was here.

Sweet, racial mixing did not go on like you think it did. For one thing, blacks weren't even looked upon as human, so that was one factor that kept the two races apart. The disgrace upon being found out is another. R. Richard has it right when he talks about social standing here. It's still very like that now, and I can only imagine what it would have been like 150 years ago.

"Gone with the Wind" is a wonderful movie....but it's fiction, people, that's all.

While you are absolutely factually correct, you may be off base on sweet's sources.

The web is full of revisionist historians and their sites, and they all have a program or axe to grind and some sound very scholarly and informed. Many also have print copy books where you will find the most wild inaccuracies repreated as fact. One professor's book, stated the south lost because it did not have good morale. That's from a professor, and not just you rrun of the mill one, but one with awards and pull enough to have his book posing as a textbook for college courses.

If you happen to be a libreral, move in mostly liberal circles when researching and don't make an effort to research what you read and cross check for accuracy, it's very easy to end up with a view that is preposterously distorted.

The schoarly world is no more immune from demogogues than the political world. In fact, it might be even more vulnerable, because professors by and large have to publish to get tenure and when trying to publish, many, want to produce something that is economically viable as well. This leads to a lot writing what they think people want to hear, or what fits their own view, or even just writing hooey because they figure if it's controverseal, it will sell.

The education system is responsible too. In one of my historical journals a study found that in textbooks used in the NE, the convention at Senneca Falls gets 18 mentions, R.E. Lee gets three on average.

History has become a kind of hammer to beat people's personal drums in recent years. the facts are glossed over and used selectively to support a position.

It's sad but true that Sweet could have picked up the exact set ofmisconceptions she is working under from scholarly journals and books by supposed experts just as easily as from North & South.

 

[TheEarl]

Like in Ireland for World War 2. If the British didn't insist on holding onto Northern Ireland, what real reason did Ireland have to join the Axis?

Luc: Don't make me get up on my soapbox. Britain does not insist on keeping hold of Northern Ireland. There is a large percentage of the population of N.Ireland, about 60-odd% or more, that consider themselves British and British only. Not Irish, but British.

It's not a question of the evil British armies holding onto those poor Irish people in N.Ireland. The majority do not want union with Ireland. That's why they're still part of Britain.

And IIRC, Ireland was neutral (although actively unhelpful to England) in WW2, rather than being a member of the Axis.

Sorry, you've hit a pet peeve, but I hate it when anyone refers to Britain as 'holding onto N.Ireland.' It's not as though we desperately love the place - If it wasn't full of British citizens and people who wish to stay British, do you not think we would've dropped the place by now?

The Earl

 

[cloudy]

While you are absolutely factually correct, you may be off base on sweet's sources.

The web is full of revisionist historians and their sites, and they all have a program or axe to grind and some sound very scholarly and informed. Many also have print copy books where you will find the most wild inaccuracies repreated as fact. One professor's book, stated the south lost because it did not have good morale. That's from a professor, and not just you rrun of the mill one, but one with awards and pull enough to have his book posing as a textbook for college courses.

If you happen to be a libreral, move in mostly liberal circles when researching and don't make an effort to research what you read and cross check for accuracy, it's very easy to end up with a view that is preposterously distorted.

The schoarly world is no more immune from demogogues than the political world. In fact, it might be even more vulnerable, because professors by and large have to publish to get tenure and when trying to publish, many, want to produce something that is economically viable as well. This leads to a lot writing what they think people want to hear, or what fits their own view, or even just writing hooey because they figure if it's controverseal, it will sell.

The education system is responsible too. In one of my historical journals a study found that in textbooks used in the NE, the convention at Senneca Falls gets 18 mentions, R.E. Lee gets three on average.

History has become a kind of hammer to beat people's personal drums in recent years. the facts are glossed over and used selectively to support a position.

It's sad but true that Sweet could have picked up the exact set ofmisconceptions she is working under from scholarly journals and books by supposed experts just as easily as from North & South.

You put it so much better than I ever could, Colly.

What sells, Sweet, and what you are apparently reading, is what's interesting to us. It isn't interesting to read of a slave that is treated well. It is interesting to read of one that grows up to become her master's concubine, and has his children. Or of one that escapes and is hunted down relentlessly, etc.

The exerpts you posted are heartbreaking, but if they were just the accounts of what people did on a normal day, would you have read it? Probably not. Just because there is a written account, doesn't mean it was widespread. Please don't make assumptions like that...you'll be mistaken if you do.

At the risk of getting things thrown at me, I'll tell you a little family history:

One of my great-greats was a plantation owner/slave owner, and having read his journal, and written accounts of life on his property, it was as far from "Gone with the Wind" as it could be.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Morgan Freeman, Narrator: By 1665 Maryland and New York had legalized slavery. Three years earlier Virginia law makers decreed, "all children born in Virginia shall be held bond or free according to the condition of the mother."

Deborah Gray White : Even children of say a white master and a slave woman it makes those children not free it makes them a slave. It makes them chattel, it makes them valuable, it makes the white father a slave owner of his own children.

Norrece Jones: Black men and black women raised thousands of mulatto children as families. That love of children transcended the pain and the horror of how that child was created. Unlike some Europeans who created these children and saw their lives so meaningless and insignificant that they sold them no differently than any other slave.

---------

Peter Wood: A small group of elite Virginia planters have committed to the use of race slavery to expand their tobacco holdings. In 1691 they forbid free blacks from living in certain counties. If you're African-American you cannot have an educatio, ah, you cannot move about freely. You cannot hold property. All of these constraints are falling in on one generation.

Deborah Gray White : It's a link in a chain of slavery whereby people cannot become free. Before this there were ways of becoming free.


Morgan Freeman, Narrator: For the enslaved, survival took many forms. Some pretended to be ignorant or represented their masters' interests. However, many refused to conform. They maintained their dignity by drawing strength from their spirituality and culture.


----

Edward Ball: Well the more money that the white elites made, the more it was in their interests to make the slave system a kind of invincible fortress that would perpetuate the -- ah -- comforts of the few. And so the incentive was for those who ran the society to set up extensive policing systems.

Jim Horton: A slave, a slave especially under these circumstances wants to survive, wants to be free. And it also doesn't take much imagination to understand the anger of being enslaved of being held against your will of seeing your loved ones subjected to treatment that no human begins ought to experience.

Edward Ball: The first time your punishment was whipping. If you ran away a second time there would be an "R" branded on your right cheek. The third time one of your ears would be severed and another "R" would be burned onto your left cheek for runaway. And if you ran away a fourth time -- if you were a man the punishment was castration.

Peter Wood: Gruesome punishments that had been familiar in England were exaggerated in the slave society. The planter had to calculate that I can punish this person even if they die I can import new people from West Africa. And I'm making so much money in this process that I can afford to do it.

Marvin Dulaney: The inhumane treatment says a lot -- that indeed they're resisting their enslavement. That -- like any other human being whose rights and opportunities are being taken away that they are going to resist and fight back.

Peter Wood: Burning down barns was something that occurred regularly and increased during harvest time when the workload was heaviest. Poisoning could not be caught readily. And it was often something that was feared by whites even when it didn't exist.

----

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/about/index.html

I don't beleive that arguement about it being more 'cost effective' to treat slaves well. YOu can treat a slave pretty badly and have them still live to work another day. You can feed them pretty scarcely and let them rely on there own ingenuity to survive-- eating what they can find or kill themselves, such as squrells and so forth.

I susppose slave narratives would count as pretty liberal reading.

I would wonder though- if the slaves were treated so well- why were they always rebelling? Why were they risking life and limb to escape? Why did some women kill there own children rather than let them be captured and taken back into slavery?

 

[cloudy]

Morgan Freeman, Narrator: By 1665 Maryland and New York had legalized slavery. Three years earlier Virginia law makers decreed, "all children born in Virginia shall be held bond or free according to the condition of the mother."

Deborah Gray White : Even children of say a white master and a slave woman it makes those children not free it makes them a slave. It makes them chattel, it makes them valuable, it makes the white father a slave owner of his own children.

Norrece Jones: Black men and black women raised thousands of mulatto children as families. That love of children transcended the pain and the horror of how that child was created. Unlike some Europeans who created these children and saw their lives so meaningless and insignificant that they sold them no differently than any other slave.

---------

Peter Wood: A small group of elite Virginia planters have committed to the use of race slavery to expand their tobacco holdings. In 1691 they forbid free blacks from living in certain counties. If you're African-American you cannot have an educatio, ah, you cannot move about freely. You cannot hold property. All of these constraints are falling in on one generation.

Deborah Gray White : It's a link in a chain of slavery whereby people cannot become free. Before this there were ways of becoming free.


Morgan Freeman, Narrator: For the enslaved, survival took many forms. Some pretended to be ignorant or represented their masters' interests. However, many refused to conform. They maintained their dignity by drawing strength from their spirituality and culture.


----

Edward Ball: Well the more money that the white elites made, the more it was in their interests to make the slave system a kind of invincible fortress that would perpetuate the -- ah -- comforts of the few. And so the incentive was for those who ran the society to set up extensive policing systems.

Jim Horton: A slave, a slave especially under these circumstances wants to survive, wants to be free. And it also doesn't take much imagination to understand the anger of being enslaved of being held against your will of seeing your loved ones subjected to treatment that no human begins ought to experience.

Edward Ball: The first time your punishment was whipping. If you ran away a second time there would be an "R" branded on your right cheek. The third time one of your ears would be severed and another "R" would be burned onto your left cheek for runaway. And if you ran away a fourth time -- if you were a man the punishment was castration.

Peter Wood: Gruesome punishments that had been familiar in England were exaggerated in the slave society. The planter had to calculate that I can punish this person even if they die I can import new people from West Africa. And I'm making so much money in this process that I can afford to do it.

Marvin Dulaney: The inhumane treatment says a lot -- that indeed they're resisting their enslavement. That -- like any other human being whose rights and opportunities are being taken away that they are going to resist and fight back.

Peter Wood: Burning down barns was something that occurred regularly and increased during harvest time when the workload was heaviest. Poisoning could not be caught readily. And it was often something that was feared by whites even when it didn't exist.

----

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/about/index.html

I don't beleive that arguement about it being more 'cost effective' to treat slaves well. YOu can treat a slave pretty badly and have them still live to work another day. You can feed them pretty scarcely and let them rely on there own ingenuity to survive-- eating what they can find or kill themselves, such as squrells and so forth.

I susppose slave narratives would count as pretty liberal reading.

I would wonder though- if the slaves were treated so well- why were they always rebelling? Why were they risking life and limb to escape? Why did some women kill there own children rather than let them be captured and taken back into slavery?

I'm bowing out, because I don't want to argue with you.

I live here, as my family has for generations, and I'm telling you, you don't know diddley-squat about it. Just because you read it, doesn't make it so. Believe what you want, as you so obviously will. You have no desire to know the truth.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

You're quite correct Colleen. One thing that has amazed me is how over years, even those of us who have studied everything we can, still argue over the causes of the CW.
What sweet has posted is an actual letter listed in the archives of the U.S. Slaverly was a crime against humanity and still is. Even though it still exist in some countries.
The thing I've learned over the years as a CW buff is to read everything, think intelligently and still look for more.
Even today, we argue over the results of various battles, legal decisions, political actions of the time and the great What if?
This is what makes history and that particular era interesting to myself and others. With more knowledge we can laugh at the professor who wrote 'Why The South Lost The War." Yet people like this are entitled to their opinions and unfortunately many who do not do the research believe it.
This was an age that affects us today. As some say the war is still being fought, and in some southern areas I won't argue that. Yet the knowledge is there for those who wish to learn.
It's easy to write an article or post a website. My site contains just documents, letters and the life that was lived by those in that era. Everyone is allowed to make their own opinions and discuss as they wish. As long as they're polite and intelligent conversations.
For the abolitionist, it was a war against slavery. For most northern soldiers it was a war to maintain the Union. The average soldier didn't care about the slaves. For the Southern soldier, it was a war about States Rights and being invaded by the North. What led to this? The western expansion of the states, the democratic party torn apart and Lincoln being elected as a Republican, the abolitionist wanting slavery absolved even though most southerners didn't own slaves. It goes on and on. But it's interesting and quite enjoyable to read about.
Did you know the word Hookers came from the CW? Gen. Hooker of the north had irreputable women in his hq and among his officers. When ever another officer would ask "Who is that woman?" She's one of Hookers. Since then, irreputable women have been called hookers. There's alot of fun facts to learn and history that still affects us.
Enjoy, do the research and form your own opinion.

 

[sweetnpetite]

You put it so much better than I ever could, Colly.

What sells, Sweet, and what you are apparently reading, is what's interesting to us. It isn't interesting to read of a slave that is treated well. It is interesting to read of one that grows up to become her master's concubine, and has his children. Or of one that escapes and is hunted down relentlessly, etc.

The exerpts you posted are heartbreaking, but if they were just the accounts of what people did on a normal day, would you have read it? Probably not. Just because there is a written account, doesn't mean it was widespread. Please don't make assumptions like that...you'll be mistaken if you do.

At the risk of getting things thrown at me, I'll tell you a little family history:

One of my great-greats was a plantation owner/slave owner, and having read his journal, and written accounts of life on his property, it was as far from "Gone with the Wind" as it could be.

Harriete Jacobs master thought himself very kind. His wife also thought she was a wonderful person. On the other hand, she was also aided by a slave holder as well. It's really hard to tell when you're reading the journal of someone who thinks that owning people as property is justified, weather or not there thoughts about themselves match there deeds very well.

I HAVE mentioned my great-aunt, who was a slave in Dr. Flint's family, and who had been my refuge during the shameful persecutions I suffered from him. This aunt had been married at twenty years of age; that is, as far as slaves can marry. She had the consent of her master and mistress, and a clergyman performed the ceremony. But it was a mere form, without any legal value. Her master or mistress could annul it any day they pleased. She had always slept on the floor in the entry, near Mrs. Flint's chamber door, that she might be within call. When she was married, she was told she might have the use of a small room in an outhouse. Her mother and her husband furnished it. He was a seafaring man, and was allowed to sleep there when he was at home. But on the wedding evening, the bride was ordered to her old post on the entry floor.

Mrs. Flint, at that time, had no children; but she was expecting to be a mother, and if she should want a drink of water in the night, what could she do without her slave to bring it? So my aunt was compelled to lie at her door, until one midnight she was forced to leave, to give premature birth to a child. In a fortnight she was required to resume her place on the entry floor, because Mrs. Flint's babe needed her attentions. She kept her station there through summer and winter, until she had given premature birth to six children; and all the while she was employed as night-nurse to Mrs. Flint's children. Finally, toiling all day, and being deprived of rest at night, completely broke down her constitution, and Dr. Flint declared it was impossible she could ever become the mother of a living child. The fear of losing so valuable a servant by death, now induced them to allow her to sleep in her little room in the out-house, except when there was sickness in the family. She afterwards had two feeble babes, one of whom died in a few days, and the other in four weeks. I well remember her patient sorrow as she held the last dead baby in her arms. "I wish it could have lived," she said; "it is not the will of God that any of my children should live. But I will try to be fit to meet their little spirits in heaven."

Aunt Nancy was housekeeper and waiting-maid in Dr. Flint's family. Indeed, she was the factotum of the household. Nothing went on well without her. She was my mother's twin sister, and, as far as was in her power, she supplied a mother's place to us orphans. I slept with her all the time I lived in my old master's house, and the bond between us was very strong. When my friends tried to discourage me from running away, she always encouraged me. When they thought I had better return and ask my master's pardon, because there was no possibility of escape, she sent me word never to yield. She said if I persevered I might, perhaps, gain the freedom of my children; and even if I perished in doing it, that was better than to leave them to groan under the same persecutions that had blighted my own life. After I was shut up in my dark cell, she stole away, whenever she could, to bring me the news and say something cheering. How often did I kneel down to listen to her words of consolation, whispered through a crack! "I am old, and have not long to live," she used to say; "and I could die happy if I could only see you and the children free. You must pray to God, Linda, as I do for you, that he will lead you out of this darkness. " I would beg her not to worry herself on my account; that there was an end of all suffering sooner or later, and that whether I lived in chains or in freedom, I should always remember her as the good friend who had been the comfort of my life. A word from her always strengthened me; and not me only. The whole family relied upon her judgment, and were guided by her advice.

I had been in my cell six years when my grandmother was summoned to the bedside of this, her last remaining daughter. She was very ill, and they said she would die. Grandmother had not entered Dr. Flint's house for several years. They had treated her cruelly, but she thought nothing of that now. She was grateful for permission to watch by the death-bed of her child. They had always been devoted to each other; and now they sat looking into each other's eyes, longing to speak of the secret that had weighed so much on the hearts of both. My aunt had been stricken with paralysis. She lived but two days, and the last day she was speechless. Before she lost the power of utterance, she told her mother not to grieve if she could not speak to her; that she would try to hold up her hand, to let her know that all was well with her. Even the hard-hearted doctor was a little softened when he saw the dying woman try to smile on the aged mother, who was kneeling by her side. His eyes moistened for a moment, as he said she had always been a faithful servant, and they should never be able to supply her place. Mrs. Flint took to her bed, quite overcome by the shock. While my grandmother sat alone with the dead, the doctor came in, leading his youngest son, who had always been a great pet with aunt Nancy, and was much attached to her. "Martha," said he, "aunt Nancy loved this child, and when he comes where you are, I hope you will be kind to him, for her sake." She replied, "Your wife was my foster-child, Dr. Flint, the foster-sister of my poor Nancy, and you little know me if you think I can feel any thing but good will for her children. "

"I wish the past could be forgotten, and that we might never think of it," said he; "and that Linda would come to supply her aunt's place. She would be worth more to us than all the money that could be paid for her. I wish it for your sake also, Martha. Now that Nancy is taken away from you, she would be a great comfort to your old age."

He knew he was touching a tender chord. Almost choking with grief, my grandmother replied, "It was not I that drove Linda away. My grandchildren are gone; and of my nine children only one is left. God help me!"

To me, the death of this kind relative was an inexpressible sorrow. I knew that she had been slowly murdered; and I felt that my troubles had helped to finish the work. After I heard of her illness, I listened constantly to hear what news was brought from the great house; and the thought that I could not go to her made me utterly miserable. At last, as uncle Phillip came into the house, I heard some one inquire, "How is she?" and he answered, "She is dead." My little cell seemed whirling round, and I knew nothing more till I opened my eyes and found uncle Phillip bending over me. I had no need to ask any questions. He whispered, "Linda, she died happy." I could not weep. My fixed gaze troubled him. "Don't look so," he said. "Don't add to my poor mother's trouble. Remember how much she has to bear, and that we ought to do all we can to comfort her." Ah, yes, that blessed old grandmother, who for seventy-three years had borne the pelting storms of a slave-mother's life. She did indeed need consolation!

Mrs. Flint had rendered her poor foster-sister childless, apparently without any compunction; and with cruel selfishness had ruined her health by years of incessant, unrequited toil, and broken rest. But now she became very sentimental. I suppose she thought it would be a beautiful illustration of the attachment existing between slaveholder and slave, if the body of her old worn-out servant was buried at her feet. She sent for the clergyman and asked if he had any objection to burying aunt Nancy in the doctor's family burial-place. No colored person had ever been allowed interment in the white people's burying-ground, and the minister knew that all the deceased of our family reposed together in the old graveyard of the slaves. He therefore replied, "I have no objection to complying with your wish; but perhaps aunt Nancy's mother may have some choice as to where her remains shall be deposited."

It had never occurred to Mrs. Flint that slaves could have any feelings. When my grandmother was consulted, she at once said she wanted Nancy to lie with all the rest of her family, and where her own old body would be buried. Mrs. Flint graciously complied with her wish, though she said it was painful to her to have Nancy buried away from her. She might have added with touching pathos, "I was so long used to sleep with her lying near me, on the entry floor."

My uncle Phillip asked permission to bury his sister at his own expense; and slaveholders are always ready to grant such favors to slaves and their relatives. The arrangements were very plain, but perfectly respectable. She was buried on the Sabbath, and Mrs. Flint's minister read the funeral service. There was a large concourse of colored people, bond and free, and a few white persons who had always been friendly to our family. Dr. Flint's carriage was in the procession; and when the body was deposited in its humble resting place, the mistress dropped a tear, and returned to her carriage, probably thinking she had performed her duty nobly.

It was talked of by the slaves as a mighty grand funeral. Northern travellers, passing through the place, might have described this tribute of respect to the humble dead as a beautiful feature in the "patriarchal institution;" a touching proof of the attachment between slaveholders and their servants; and tenderhearted Mrs. Flint would have confirmed this impression, with handkerchief at her eyes. We could have told them a different story. We could have given them a chapter of wrongs and sufferings, that would have touched their hearts, if they had any hearts to feel for the colored people. We could have told them how the poor old slave-mother had toiled, year after year, to earn eight hundred dollars to buy her son Philip’s right to his own earnings; and how that same Phillip paid the expenses of the funeral, which they regarded as doing so much credit to the master. We could also have told them of a poor, blighted young creature, shut up in a living grave for years, to avoid the tortures that would be inflicted on her, if she ventured to come out and look on the face of her departed friend.

All this, and much more, I thought of, as I sat at my loophole [peephole], waiting for the family to return from the grave; sometimes weeping, sometimes falling asleep, dreaming strange dreams of the dead and the living.

It was sad to witness the grief of my bereaved grandmother. She had always been strong to bear, and now, as ever, religious faith supported her. But her dark life had become still darker, and age and trouble were leaving deep traces on her withered face. She had four places to knock for me to come to the trap-door, and each place had a different meaning. She now came oftener than she had done, and talked to me of her dead daughter, while tears trickled slowly down her furrowed cheeks. I said all I could to comfort her; but it was a sad reflection, that instead of being able to help her, I was a constant source of anxiety and trouble. The poor old back was fitted to its burden. It bent under it, but did not break.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The Chadwicks had thirty-four slaves (we still know most of their names and what they were like, what they did, etc.) when the Civil War broke out heavily just North of Vicksburg in Yazoo County, MS. Thiry-four was a healthy big number, there was a lot of land to cover and not just cotton, quite a bit of work was done with cattle and timber and feed corn.

None of them were educated. None could read. Their labor was required to make the whole shebang work and they lived pretty well (I use that as a relative idea, of course). They weren't confronted with the poverty problems of the poor whites of Yazoo County--being run off this land and that land, working for wages (which was better than a slave), but having to use those wages to eat and live and cloth themselves (which was often not as good as a slave).

A great big tension in Yazoo County, once, was the issue of most people's slaves living better than poor whites. Bunch of people got shot over that one.

I wonder how that fits into history, though.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

A friend of mine, here, has a girlfriend direct from Indiana. He was telling me two stories about how different things are.

First, when he was visitng her family up there, they went to a McDonalds... and he almost blurted out "Where're all the black people?" I'm talkin' this place was lily-white. It was almost alien. Not one black employee in the house.... the place was all clean and all the people were courteous. It blew his mind.

Then, as she lives here in Mississippi she's been working at a local Walgreens (been with the corporation for a long time). A black lady was buying something and chickie goes "I'm sorry, we don't serve your kind here" and then laughs and checks her out and all... I saw this and I just about held my breath when she said it. Apparently, this is not an uncommon or poor joke where she's from and she said she thought nothing of it... she just don't know the south.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm bowing out, because I don't want to argue with you.

I live here, as my family has for generations, and I'm telling you, you don't know diddley-squat about it. Just because you read it, doesn't make it so. Believe what you want, as you so obviously will. You have no desire to know the truth.

I've never seen North and South- nor all (or even most) of gone with the wind.

I do have desire to know truth. And I do know that slaves and slave owners were people- not all of either group were 'good guys' or 'bad guys' but I do believe that abuse was rampant. I look at the words today- where people have legal protections and sexual abuse is rampant. I do not believe that slave masters fathering mixed children was some rare occurence. But that does not mean that I do not beleive that there were any good hearted slave holders, or any who were kind to there slaves.

The husband of this lady held many slaves, and bought and sold slaves. She also held a number in her own name; but she treated them kindly, and would never allow any of them to be sold. She was unlike the majority of slaveholders' wives. My grandmother looked earnestly at her. Something in the expression of her face said "Trust me!" and she did trust her. She listened attentively to the details of my story, and sat thinking for a while. At last she said, "Aunt Martha, I pity you both. If you think there is any chance of Linda's getting to the Free States, I will conceal her for a time. But first you must solemnly promise that my name shall never be mentioned. If such a thing should become known, it would ruin me and my family. No one in my house must know of it, except the cook. She is so faithful that I would trust my own life with her; and I know she likes Linda. It is a great risk; but I trust no harm will come of it. Get word to Linda to be ready as soon as it is dark, before the patrols are out. I will send the housemaids on errands, and Betty shall go to meet Linda." The place where we were to meet was designated and agreed upon. My grandmother was unable to thank the lady for this noble deed; overcome by her emotions, she sank on her knees and sobbed like a child.

The mistress came to meet us, and led me up stairs to a small room over her own sleeping apartment. "You will be safe here, Linda," said she; "I keep this room to store away things that are out of use. The girls are not accustomed to be sent to it, and they will not suspect any thing unless they hear some noise. I always keep it locked, and Betty shall take care of the key. But you must be very careful, for my sake as well as your own; and you must never tell my secret; for it would ruin me and my family. I will keep the girls busy in the morning, that Betty may have a chance to bring your breakfast; but it will not do for her to come to you again till night. I will come to see you sometimes. Keep up your courage. I hope this state of things will not last long." Betty came with the "nice hot supper," and the mistress hastened down stairs to keep things straight till she returned. How my heart overflowed with gratitude! Words choked in my throat; but I could have kissed the feet of my benefactress. For that deed of Christian womanhood, may God forever bless her!

 

[TheEarl]

Then, as she lives here in Mississippi she's been working at a local Walgreens (been with the corporation for a long time). A black lady was buying something and chickie goes "I'm sorry, we don't serve your kind here" and then laughs and checks her out and all... I saw this and I just about held my breath when she said it. Apparently, this is not an uncommon or poor joke where she's from and she said she thought nothing of it... she just don't know the south.

Jesus! Talk about contraversial joke. Certainly not one I'd feel comfortable telling in Peckham.

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Morgan Freeman, Narrator: By 1665 Maryland and New York had legalized slavery. Three years earlier Virginia law makers decreed, "all children born in Virginia shall be held bond or free according to the condition of the mother."

Deborah Gray White : Even children of say a white master and a slave woman it makes those children not free it makes them a slave. It makes them chattel, it makes them valuable, it makes the white father a slave owner of his own children.

Norrece Jones: Black men and black women raised thousands of mulatto children as families. That love of children transcended the pain and the horror of how that child was created. Unlike some Europeans who created these children and saw their lives so meaningless and insignificant that they sold them no differently than any other slave.

---------

Peter Wood: A small group of elite Virginia planters have committed to the use of race slavery to expand their tobacco holdings. In 1691 they forbid free blacks from living in certain counties. If you're African-American you cannot have an educatio, ah, you cannot move about freely. You cannot hold property. All of these constraints are falling in on one generation.

Deborah Gray White : It's a link in a chain of slavery whereby people cannot become free. Before this there were ways of becoming free.


Morgan Freeman, Narrator: For the enslaved, survival took many forms. Some pretended to be ignorant or represented their masters' interests. However, many refused to conform. They maintained their dignity by drawing strength from their spirituality and culture.


----

Edward Ball: Well the more money that the white elites made, the more it was in their interests to make the slave system a kind of invincible fortress that would perpetuate the -- ah -- comforts of the few. And so the incentive was for those who ran the society to set up extensive policing systems.

Jim Horton: A slave, a slave especially under these circumstances wants to survive, wants to be free. And it also doesn't take much imagination to understand the anger of being enslaved of being held against your will of seeing your loved ones subjected to treatment that no human begins ought to experience.

Edward Ball: The first time your punishment was whipping. If you ran away a second time there would be an "R" branded on your right cheek. The third time one of your ears would be severed and another "R" would be burned onto your left cheek for runaway. And if you ran away a fourth time -- if you were a man the punishment was castration.

Peter Wood: Gruesome punishments that had been familiar in England were exaggerated in the slave society. The planter had to calculate that I can punish this person even if they die I can import new people from West Africa. And I'm making so much money in this process that I can afford to do it.

Marvin Dulaney: The inhumane treatment says a lot -- that indeed they're resisting their enslavement. That -- like any other human being whose rights and opportunities are being taken away that they are going to resist and fight back.

Peter Wood: Burning down barns was something that occurred regularly and increased during harvest time when the workload was heaviest. Poisoning could not be caught readily. And it was often something that was feared by whites even when it didn't exist.




----

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/about/index.html

I don't beleive that arguement about it being more 'cost effective' to treat slaves well. YOu can treat a slave pretty badly and have them still live to work another day. You can feed them pretty scarcely and let them rely on there own ingenuity to survive-- eating what they can find or kill themselves, such as squrells and so forth.

I susppose slave narratives would count as pretty liberal reading.

I would wonder though- if the slaves were treated so well- why were they always rebelling? Why were they risking life and limb to escape? Why did some women kill there own children rather than let them be captured and taken back into slavery?

Peter Woods: associate professor at Boston University. Not a historian, but an antrhopologist.

Marvin Dulaney: Professor of African American studies. Charelston University.

Blurb for the Avry Center:
Academic and Research Programs at the Avery Research Center
Avery's mission extends beyond its physical role as an archives. From its inception, the Center has served as a source of community outreach on African American issues. It sponsors conferences, lectures, films, and exhibits about African culture, African American history, and civil rights that attract local, regional, and national audiences. Avery's public programs convey the importance of collecting and preserving the records and documents of not only public figures, but also ordinary people whose stories reveal the "grassroots" experience of everyday life. The College of Charleston's African American Studies Program is linked closely with the Center, enabling the College to sustain important connections with the area's African American community.

Edward Ball: Author, Slaves in the Family

Genealogical work chronicling the treatment of slaves by his ancestors.

Deborah G. White, Author, PhD. Univ or Illionois.


I am familiar with only one of these people, James Horton. It's a fine collection of minds, but hardly represenative of a range of opinion. If you care to study, you will find them all to be to greater or lesser extent, african american activists. This does NOT in any way, belittle their accomplishments, both scholarly and authorly. It does give you a homogenous group of opinion and interpretation of the historic record. Defintely not the only interpretation, nor in many cases, even the majority interpretation.

If your sampling of sources is going to fall along such a narror range, you are inevitably going to form your opinions within that range. And you will face the kind of harsh critique you got from people who have sampled a much wider range of sources.

The issue of slavery was central to the Civil War, only in as much as it was part of an economic system. A careful reding of the emancipation proclimation will show you it was a well concieved bit of political chichanery. The only slaves freed, were those in states in open rebellion. Slaves in the border states were not freed. The only reason slavery took central stage, was because selling the war as one against human bondage, preempted the British & French from recognizing the confederacy. There were abolitionists to be sure, but they made up a fairly small minority, even in the North.

You are entitled to accept the version of history that you want. If you accept it without sampling a wider range, you are likely to end up sounding misinformed at best, uninformed at worst.

Study of the antebellum South is a very specialized branch of history and experts are not common. Study by those who attempt to single out slavery, as a subject apart from the society around it, encpompasses a fairly large body of work. You need to read and have an appreciation of the former, before you can make value judgements on the validity of the later.

I did not speialize in the old south, nor the civil war. But I have an appreciation of both that is fairly well rounded and extensive. Slavery, as a subject was nowhere near as harmless as santized versions want you to believe, nor was it nearly as viciously brutal as it is portrayed by others. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but you can't appreciate that if you are only getting one side of the debate or only giving creedence to those with a view you wish to expouse.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Most people couldn't afford to own slaves. That's right, I said afford. They were an expensive type of property to own, plus extended upkeep, and it was an investment. Granted, they were looked on as property, and abuses went on, but if you put yourself in the place of a plantation owner of the time, and you spent what amounted to half your yearly income on a piece of property, are you more liable to mistreat that property, or take care of it?

To be a man, and not to be a man--a father without authority--a husband and no protector--is the darkest of fates. Such was the condition of my father, and such is the condition of every slave throughout the United States: he owns nothing, he can claim nothing. His wife is not his: his children are not his; they can be taken from him, and sold at any minute, as far away from each other as the human fleshmonger may see fit to carry them. Slaves are recognised as property by the law, and can own nothing except by the consent of their masters. A slave's wife or daughter may be insulted before his eyes with impunity. He himself may be called on to torture them, and dare not refuse. To raise his hand in their defence is death by the law. He must bear all things and resist nothing. If he leaves his master's premises at any time without a written permit, he is liable to be flogged. Yet, it is said by slaveholders and their apologists, that we are happy and contented. I will admit that slaves are sometimes cheerful; they sing and dance, as it is politic for them to do. I myself had changed owners three times before I could see the policy of this appearance of contentment. My father taught me to hate slavery, but forgot to teach me how to conceal my hatred.

From another liberal and biased slave narrative:A True Tale of Slavery by John Jacobs

 

[sweetnpetite]

I am familiar with only one of these people, James Horton. It's a fine collection of minds, but hardly represenative of a range of opinion. If you care to study, you will find them all to be to greater or lesser extent, african american activists. This does NOT in any way, belittle their accomplishments, both scholarly and authorly. It does give you a homogenous group of opinion and interpretation of the historic record. Defintely not the only interpretation, nor in many cases, even the majority interpretation.

If your sampling of sources is going to fall along such a narror range, you are inevitably going to form your opinions within that range. And you will face the kind of harsh critique you got from people who have sampled a much wider range of sources.

The issue of slavery was central to the Civil War, only in as much as it was part of an economic system. A careful reding of the emancipation proclimation will show you it was a well concieved bit of political chichanery. The only slaves freed, were those in states in open rebellion. Slaves in the border states were not freed. The only reason slavery took central stage, was because selling the war as one against human bondage, preempted the British & French from recognizing the confederacy. There were abolitionists to be sure, but they made up a fairly small minority, even in the North.

You are entitled to accept the version of history that you want. If you accept it without sampling a wider range, you are likely to end up sounding misinformed at best, uninformed at worst.

Study of the antebellum South is a very specialized branch of history and experts are not common. Study by those who attempt to single out slavery, as a subject apart from the society around it, encpompasses a fairly large body of work. You need to read and have an appreciation of the former, before you can make value judgements on the validity of the later.

I did not speialize in the old south, nor the civil war. But I have an appreciation of both that is fairly well rounded and extensive. Slavery, as a subject was nowhere near as harmless as santized versions want you to believe, nor was it nearly as viciously brutal as it is portrayed by others. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but you can't appreciate that if you are only getting one side of the debate or only giving creedence to those with a view you wish to expouse.

Colly,

Thank you for you're response.

I actually have heard many of the arguemnts of the other side- and only recently have I approached it from the African-American and slave point of view. I believe that the slaves knew much more about what was really going on than even the slave holders, let alone what they wanted to admit. I believe in studying the history of slavery from the point of veiw of the slaves, and the history of Native American's from the point of view of the Native Americans, ect. I would give Sitting Bull's autobiogrophy or recorded words more consideration than a white schollar of the subject.

Did the slave holders know about other slaves teaching each other to read in secret? Did they know about travel and information routes amoung the slaves? Yes, many slaves could not read, but I think it is unfair to paint the picture that all or most slaves were illiterate, unlearned and ignorant. As many have noted, slaves found it politic to pretend to be ignorant, to hide what they knew. To pretend to be content. And to find whatever little happyness their lives afforded them.

I'm sorry that I am just an ignorant liberal northerner. I guess as long as I beleive the words of former slaves over the words of former slave owners I will always be viewed that way. I have posted thoughts to support my views, and to show that i did not make them up out of my mind. Although I don't have extensive years of study on the subject, please do not take this to mean that I have never read, heard or studied any other point of view on the topic. My reading and interests are varied. I have read extensive material from the KKK's own website. I am not afraid to read an opposing point of view.

I thank you for your considerate response. My response here refects my reaction to the thread so far, and not just what you have said. But I do have a desire to know the truth- however no one will ever know the absolute truth, I will have to content myself with aquiring knowlege.

This thread has basicly gone off the topic of the civil war to the topic of slavery, which was not what it was meant to be. My comments about slavery are really not concerning my oppinions of the civil war- unless specifically stated, the topic just got changed.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Sweet,

By looking at any point in history from one point of view you're going to walk away with just that view. By approaching the Civil War from the view of the slave and of the abolitionist, that's the view you see. From there you will see the Dred Scott Decision, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and more.
By looking at the overall reasons of the war you will find the Crittenden Compromise, pre war speeches by Lincoln, Douglas and Breckenridge debates, the various state resolutions each state took before the war.
There is always more than one side. None of us can deny the slaves were mistreated. There were also good masters as well as bad.
I know this was not meant to be a debate about slavery as you began the thread. Unfortunately, when anyone discusses the CW it always turns that way.
You're not an illiterate northerner. Never say that. You just grew up learning what the education system taught you. Now it's time to learn and form your own opinion. Not those taught to you by others and approved by the government.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

One thing is always true of war, the victor gets to write the history.

The civil war was about much more than slavery. One of the focal points of the Confederates was they didn't want a large, centralized, powerful federal government. They wanted power for each state. In the S.Carolina declaration of secession, that is the first thing mentioned.

Being born and raised in the south, I'm sure I got a different version of the civil war than someone born way up North. I think we were taught more the whole story. We were taught about States rights versus federal rights as well as being taught about slavery. We were taught that it was about two completely different views of how the country should be run. For the most part we weren't taught that the yankees were bad. We were taught that they were our brothers.

I did have one teacher that was probably in her 60's and she always referred to the Civil war as the war of Northern oppression. Her view was definitely a minority view, even though in some areas, she made some good points.

One interesting thing that is not widely known at all: In an effort to end the civil war, Lincoln tried to make a deal with the south to have all of the negroes sent back to Africa after they were freed.

Lincolns side won the war and this fact is conveniently omitted from later history. Lincoln wasn't the lilly white savior that history makes him out to be. He made the offer to send all negroes back to Africa in exchange for peace.

 

[cloudy]

One thing is always true of war, the victor gets to write the history.

The civil war was about much more than slavery. One of the focal points of the Confederates was they didn't want a large, centralized, powerful federal government. They wanted power for each state. In the S.Carolina declaration of secession, that is the first thing mentioned.

Being born and raised in the south, I'm sure I got a different version of the civil war than someone born way up North. I think we were taught more the whole story. We were taught about States rights versus federal rights as well as being taught about slavery. We were taught that it was about two completely different views of how the country should be run. For the most part we weren't taught that the yankees were bad. We were taught that they were our brothers.

I did have one teacher that was probably in her 60's and she always referred to the Civil war as the war of Northern oppression. Her view was definitely a minority view, even though in some areas, she made some good points.

One interesting thing that is not widely known at all: In an effort to end the civil war, Lincoln tried to make a deal with the south to have all of the negroes sent back to Africa after they were freed.

Lincolns side won the war and this fact is conveniently omitted from later history. Lincoln wasn't the lilly white savior that history makes him out to be. He made the offer to send all negroes back to Africa in exchange for peace.

He also sentenced 380+ Dakota Sioux warriors to hang, but "graciously" pardoned all but 38 at the last minute.



They had to build a special gallows to hang them all at one time.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Sweet,

By looking at any point in history from one point of view you're going to walk away with just that view. By approaching the Civil War from the view of the slave and of the abolitionist, that's the view you see. From there you will see the Dred Scott Decision, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and more.
By looking at the overall reasons of the war you will find the Crittenden Compromise, pre war speeches by Lincoln, Douglas and Breckenridge debates, the various state resolutions each state took before the war.
There is always more than one side. None of us can deny the slaves were mistreated. There were also good masters as well as bad.
I know this was not meant to be a debate about slavery as you began the thread. Unfortunately, when anyone discusses the CW it always turns that way.
You're not an illiterate northerner. Never say that. You just grew up learning what the education system taught you. Now it's time to learn and form your own opinion. Not those taught to you by others and approved by the government.

None of that was what my education system taught me. My education system was far more forgiveing, and implied many of the same ideas- that slaves were well treated because they were valuable property, that there lives were usually worse off after being granted freedom, that many slaves prefered there life of slavery, that abolishionists accounts were exagerated. That slavery was bad, but perhaps a necesary evil at the time...

I'm not saying I look at only one side, I'm saying that the voice of those you are studying (which has mostly been overlooked in my education) will yeild in my oppinin a clearer vision of the subject than the voice more often heard in the case of most minorites- the vioce of an outside observer.

 

[china-doll]

Lincolns side won the war and this fact is conveniently omitted from later history. Lincoln wasn't the lilly white savior that history makes him out to be. He made the offer to send all negroes back to Africa in exchange for peace.

Definitly true.

He once said something along the lines of (I'm horribly misquoting this, but I can't find the actual quote now)

"If I could save the union without freeing a single slave I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves and not the others, I would do that to."

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Sweet,

If you're looking beyond what you were taught then I applaud you. I would also suggest looking at the Constitution of the United States. There are many arguments among the CW community that secession was allowed by our Founding Fathers. In other words, they left open the chance of a Civil War by giving states their rights.
The Federal government, under the views of the southern states at time, had too much control. The south had political power. This was a thorn to the North. This war was coming. As Ogg said it's signs of a growing nation.
Just keep researching and learning. And if you ever need help let me know.
Of course the funny part today is, the federal government seems to want to give the states more leeway and not tread on their rights. It took a war to do that, a Civil War. Too bad 100's of thousands of soldiers and civilians lost their lives supporting what we have today as a Republic.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Just as an interesting side note to all of this Lincoln talk: I live less than 10 miles from Lincolns birthplace and boyhood home.

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Definitly true.

He once said something along the lines of (I'm horribly misquoting this, but I can't find the actual quote now)

"If I could save the union without freeing a single slave I would do it. If I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it, and if I could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves and not the others, I would do that to."

You're quote is word for word china doll. I had mentioned earlier that Lincoln had wanted to send the slaves back. I guess no one believed it. ty Wildcard Ky for reiterating the fact.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . I can't find the actual quote now)
"If I could save the union . . . "

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." – August 22, 1862 – A. Lincoln

(Note my highlighting)

 

[Lord DragonsWing]

Thanks Sweet,

For the thread, I was getting bored with the recent threads on Lit and have thoroughly enjoyed this one on the Civil War. My new story is going to be the Homespun Dress. It's a non-erotic story of the war. Funny how inspiration comes along.

 

[entitled]

OK, jumping in with my couple of dimes' worth here... Please note i didn't read the whole thread and this is just an opinion.

First off, i grew up in Colorado. i'm neither a northerner nor a southerner, do not think like anybody from either region, and cannot claim association with either the Union or the Confederacy. None! The family hasn't been in the states long enough to have had anybody on either side, even.

What i was taught - from elementary on through high school - is that there were three main reasons for the Civil War. In no particular order: slavery, regional differences, and control.

Slavery, as i was taught, was not a major issue in the war until after the Emancipation Proclomation was written and signed. Then it became the official focus of the media. The true focus of the governments and the soldiers were the other two reasons for the war.

Regional differences did play a huge part. There was little communication and none of it was speedy in any sense of the word. There were carrier pigeons and post delivered by train and those type of things, but none of these were really reliable. It's still hard to be sure the mail will go through. Goodness knows i've had my share of mutilated letters come in. Travel was also more difficult. Many people stayed close to home. Only the wealthy and their servants travelled heavily.

Considering that, it was difficult to share opinions and ideas between the northern and southern states. The north had a definite advantage with their industrialisation and technological advances. The south had an advantage in their agricultural areas and the number of ports available (though the north had more ships). Some of this was due to the fact that each region is more specifically suited to different uses. Anybody who has lived a year in a northern state and a year in a southern state can attest to that.

If the lines of communication had been what they are today the two regions could have built off of each other instead of fighting with each other. They could have worked together for a common benefit. Instead, the northern states decided that, since many of the government offices were held by northerners, they should be able to tell the southerners to jump and expect them to do it immediately. The north decided it should be in complete control. Therefore, they started pushing their thoughts and way of life on the southerners. The southerners took offense to it after a while (yes, this built up for a long time) and decided they were going to become their own country.

The rest, as they say, is history.