Slavery is Our King; Slavery is our Truth; Slavery is our Divine Right! Modern people can't understand the mind of the slaveholder.

Joined
Aug 4, 2019
I have my copy of SOUL BY SOUL by WALTER JOHNSON and I highly recommend it. Never forget that Bedford Forrest obtained his wealth as a Slave Trader at which he excelled. He and his brothers operated a slave trader business in Memphis TN in all their glory.
 

Malingerer

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Location
Cullowhee, NC
What happened?
IIRC, Wade Hampton II found out about the affair that Hammond had been having with his four underage daughters he was enraged and deliberately let it be known what sort of man Hammond was. Socially, Hammond was ruined and withdrew from public life for a decade. But like scores of corrupt politicians and television preachers, Hammond had his comeback just in time for the secession crisis where he becomes a central player as one of South Carolina's two senators. As for Hampton's four daughters, they became ruined women (which, undoubtedly, Hampton knew they would be before he leaked news of the scandal - talk about cold) none ever married for no man of any standing would go near them. So much for the flower of Southern Chivalry.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
If you really want to understand the militancy of a reactionary fire eater in regards to his slavocracy beliefs one must read: EDMUND RUFFIN: SOUTHERN: A STUDY IN SECESSION by AVERY O. CRAVEN. I am afraid their belief system is much deeper than one thinks and much of it is being in fashion to this day.
 

wbull1

First Sergeant
Official Vendor
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
I think the mindset can be partially understood by noting the traditional and national understanding of slavery as a "necessary evil" to the definition given in John C. Calhoun's 1837 speech.


Selections from John C. Calhoun’s 1837 speech:

Be it good or bad, [slavery] has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:–far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually….

The relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two [races], is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good.


When this argument was accepted as the truth, opponents of slavery became not just wrong but evil. There was no common ground on which discussion could be held. To hold this view the believer had to distort reality obvious to observers from other parts of the US and foreign countries. It was, in my opinion like joining a cult.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I think the mindset can be partially understood by noting the traditional and national understanding of slavery as a "necessary evil" to the definition given in John C. Calhoun's 1837 speech.


Selections from John C. Calhoun’s 1837 speech:

Be it good or bad, [slavery] has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:–far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually….

The relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two [races], is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good.


When this argument was accepted as the truth, opponents of slavery became not just wrong but evil. There was no common ground on which discussion could be held. To hold this view the believer had to distort reality obvious to observers from other parts of the US and foreign countries. It was, in my opinion like joining a cult.
You have hit at the heart of the thing. Factually, Calhoun could not be more wrong. The civilizations that grew up in Subsaharan Africa were magnificent. Where Calhoun was exactly on point was his depiction of the mental gymnastics a believing Christian had to go through in order to justify slaveholding.

I enjoy Louis Gates Jr's PBS show Finding Your Roots. In a recent program, Queen Latifa discovered that her 200 year ago ancestor was freed. The woman who owned him explicitly stated that it was her abhorrence of owning other human beings as property that motivated her. People knew that what they were doing was abhorrent. Wills & journals attest to the fears of eternal damnation. Post mortem freeing of slaves became so common that the practice was outlawed & restricted.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I think the mindset can be partially understood by noting the traditional and national understanding of slavery as a "necessary evil" to the definition given in John C. Calhoun's 1837 speech.


Selections from John C. Calhoun’s 1837 speech:

Be it good or bad, [slavery] has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil:–far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually….

The relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two [races], is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good.


When this argument was accepted as the truth, opponents of slavery became not just wrong but evil. There was no common ground on which discussion could be held. To hold this view the believer had to distort reality obvious to observers from other parts of the US and foreign countries. It was, in my opinion like joining a cult.
I would think it can be partially understood in not only was it the norm at the time, but it had always been the norm for 1000's of years...As Calhoun points not out not only was it intertwined with all of US history, but the history of colonies prior under the English, Dutch, Spanish, and French.

If one looks at the timeline of slavery from its inception to today, we are the aberration, not the norm
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
You have hit at the heart of the thing. Factually, Calhoun could not be more wrong. The civilizations that grew up in Subsaharan Africa were magnificent. Where Calhoun was exactly on point was his depiction of the mental gymnastics a believing Christian had to go through in order to justify slaveholding.

I enjoy Louis Gates Jr's PBS show Finding Your Roots. In a recent program, Queen Latifa discovered that her 200 year ago ancestor was freed. The woman who owned him explicitly stated that it was her abhorrence of owning other human beings as property that motivated her. People knew that what they were doing was abhorrent. Wills & journals attest to the fears of eternal ****ation. Post mortem freeing of slaves became so common that the practice was outlawed & restricted.
Ironically, both Baltimore and New Orleans had large populations of free blacks in the antebellum period. While both places had their problems, the kind of apocalyptic bloodbath described by Calhoun never happened.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Ironically, both Baltimore and New Orleans had large populations of free blacks in the antebellum period. While both places had their problems, the kind of apocalyptic bloodbath described by Calhoun never happened.
The Louisiana Slave Revolt of 1811 was an event that Calhoun would have been very aware of. It is also known as the 1811 German Coast uprising. The January 8-10, 1811 slave rebellion began on a plantation owned by Manual Andry in Saint John the Baptist parish. French slaveholders that had fled the massacre of slaveholders in Haiti had brought some of their slaves to Louisiana. The revolt was savagely put down, heads on poles lined the riverbank for miles. That was the nightmare scenario that haunted slaveholder rhetoric.

The 1811 revolt was all but wiped from history. It was not until recent times that it has been openly discussed. In a prime example of the new, honest way that slaveholding is being presented, Destrehan Plantation in Louisiana has a display about the revolt.

The fate of slaveholders in Haiti is a recurring theme in the documents & speeches that defended secession. I asked man who knows a great deal about his enslaved ancestors why self=liberating people here in Tennessee didn't attack their masters. He told me that,'They were believing Christians & murdering their oppressors would have been sinful. They were better Christians than their masters.' I can't argue with that.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
What makes American slavery different, and in some ways worse than other forms of slavery is the need to turn the enslaved people into subhumans. Romans held enormous numbers of slaves, but they didn't need a theory that the enslaved were racially fitted to slaves, or to pretend that slavery was wonderful for the enslaved.
Roman history contains a record of numerous slave revolts, the largest of which occurred in Italy. Which revolts were conducted by enslaved populations and which were conducted by oppressed tribes is an interesting subject.
 

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
After the Roman Empire stopped expanding, and plague started running through the urban centers, slaves were a scarce population, I suspect.
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
I have my copy of SOUL BY SOUL by WALTER JOHNSON and I highly recommend it. Never forget that Bedford Forrest obtained his wealth as a Slave Trader at which he excelled. He and his brothers operated a slave trader business in Memphis TN in all their glory.
As we hear regularly.
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
If you really want to understand the militancy of a reactionary fire eater in regards to his slavocracy beliefs one must read: EDMUND RUFFIN: SOUTHERN: A STUDY IN SECESSION by AVERY O. CRAVEN. I am afraid their belief system is much deeper than one thinks and much of it is being in fashion to this day.

[see Lincoln-Douglas debates]
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."(Lincoln)
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
[see Lincoln-Douglas debates]
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."(Lincoln)
One cannot freeze Lincoln's beliefs and attitudes at a split second in time.

If Lincoln had remained 'frozen' in the above attitudes given in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, then why did he eventually issue the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did he support the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery?

Snap shots are great in depicting a moment in time, as we all know from looking at our own family photo albums. But time and people move and change over time.

Lincoln could do that.

Southern slaveholders couldn't.

That's the big difference @danny .
 
Last edited:

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
One cannot freeze Lincoln's beliefs and attitudes at a split second in time.

If Lincoln had remained 'frozen' in the above attitudes given in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, then why did he eventually issue the Emancipation Proclamation? Why did he support the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery.

Snap shots are great in depicting a moment in time, as we all know from looking at our own family photo albums. But time and people move and change over time.

Lincoln could do that.

Southern slaveholders couldn't.

That's the big difference @danny .
unionblue has hit the nail on the head. No less an authority than Frederick Douglas chronicled the arc of Lincoln's attitude toward emancipation. Flexibility of mind was one of Lincoln's great strengths. From his childhood, he was a sponge for learning. Unlike Davis, who clung to his preconceptions with a grip of steel, Lincoln was open to new ideas. That logical turn of mind was what made him such an excellent lawyer; when the facts changed, his conclusions changed accordingly. Lincoln's own words are eloquent evidence of the evolution of his beliefs on many subjects.
 
Last edited:

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
As we hear regularly.
Forrest Slave sale advertizement.jpeg


There is a good reason for that.​
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
[see Lincoln-Douglas debates]
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races -- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making VOTERS or jurors of negroes, NOR OF QUALIFYING THEM HOLD OFFICE, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any of her man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."(Lincoln)
This is an excellent example of why scholars do not tolerate cherry picking quotes that happen to support a particular preconceived position.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
He's doing Lincoln a favor by posting only one comment ("cherry picking" as you say). If he were to post all of Lincoln's racist statements it would fill up the entire thread.
As Frederick Douglas saw it, Lincoln’s thinking went from what was the middle of the road racist twiddle of his upbringing to an entirely different mode of thinking. The Constitutional Amendments that grew out of that evolution are Lincoln’s greatest legacy.
How fortunate for you...
You are exactly right. Given the large number of slaves my family members would have fathered, it would have been fratricidal in the extreme.

My experience has been that folks that historically owned a lot of their fellow family members & now acknowledge each other as a single family today have a certain outlook that people who just post tropes don’t.
 
Top