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

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
I just don't see the point of these never ending self righteous attempts at rehashing the evils of slavery. I think most agree with that.
It was what is was and modern day interpretations for attack purposes are simply self serving.

These continuous attacks on the South for slavery is entirely hypocritical. Some here, of the more sanctimonious, appear touchy if evidence of complicit northern views on slavery is presented. Then the presenter, and/or the mode of presentation becomes the target.

Let's all join together and save our attacks for Africa. After all, that is where American slaves had originally been enslaved.
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
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.

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.
That doesn't permit self righteousness
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I just don't see the point of these never ending self righteous attempts at rehashing the evils of slavery. I think most agree with that.
It was what is was and modern day interpretations for attack purposes are simply self serving.

These continuous attacks on the South for slavery is entirely hypocritical. Some here, of the more sanctimonious, appear touchy if evidence of complicit northern views on slavery is presented. Then the presenter, and/or the mode of presentation becomes the target.

Let's all join together and save our attacks for Africa. After all, that is where American slaves had originally been enslaved.
I don’t either. When you find some posts that are actually like that, let me know.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I just don't see the point of these never ending self righteous attempts at rehashing the evils of slavery. I think most agree with that.
It was what is was and modern day interpretations for attack purposes are simply self serving.

These continuous attacks on the South for slavery is entirely hypocritical. Some here, of the more sanctimonious, appear touchy if evidence of complicit northern views on slavery is presented. Then the presenter, and/or the mode of presentation becomes the target.

Let's all join together and save our attacks for Africa. After all, that is where American slaves had originally been enslaved.
I take you at your word, you really don't understand. Apparently, you find the realities of Southern culture an embarrassment. To me they are just the way things were. Members of my mother's family were slaveholders & no doubt also slaves in Virginia from the 1600's onward. On my Dad's side, the same was true in North Carolina beginning about 100 years later. The names of individual slaves are listed in numerous wills. One very long lived man named Moses appears in 3 of them. The punishment logs of plantations are sobering reading. From my perspective, it is impossible to exaggerate how absurd the comments above are.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
How fortunate for you...
Does seem a rather strange claim or position.......perhaps slave museums should stress Ephesians 6.5 and Colossians 3.22 more if advocating a position of slave Christian morality.

As slaves should have obeyed their masters, if one wants to interject religion, or a moral superiority based on it.

But that's one thing that makes it difficult for some modern minds to understand people of the time.

Not only was it the way it was, and always had been

Not only was it legal and accepted.

But many church doctrines had it a moral and natural order of things based on Bible.
 
Last edited:

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
I just don't see the point of these never ending self righteous attempts at rehashing the evils of slavery. I think most agree with that.
It was what is was and modern day interpretations for attack purposes are simply self serving.

These continuous attacks on the South for slavery is entirely hypocritical. Some here, of the more sanctimonious, appear touchy if evidence of complicit northern views on slavery is presented. Then the presenter, and/or the mode of presentation becomes the target.

Let's all join together and save our attacks for Africa. After all, that is where American slaves had originally been enslaved.

I don't agree with you often but in this instance you are correct Blame for slavery lies with every part of the world we live in no country can deny at some point in their history that slavery was a common institution.

More needs to be done as of now over 60 million people are still in bondage of some form modern slavery exists but instead to many activists focus on the past rather than the present maybe they should channel their energy's into eradicating modern day slavery rather than keep opening up old wounds so to speak.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Let all join together and think about this: should we blame the Southern American Slave for his slavery because he came from Africa? *edited* It seems to me that I am constantly having to “rehash the evils of slavery” simply because there is a ton of people who constantly try to mitigate and distort its truthful history. I do not attack slavery because it is limited to the South. I attack it because it is morally evil anywhere it is found. When I attack slavery I am not attacking all southerners as many were not involved in slavery by a moral disdain or lack of money to do so or both.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Let all join together and think about this: should we blame the Southern American Slave for his slavery because he came from Africa? *edited* It seems to me that I am constantly having to “rehash the evils of slavery” simply because there is a ton of people who constantly try to mitigate and distort its truthful history. I do not attack slavery because it is limited to the South. I attack it because it is morally evil anywhere it is found. When I attack slavery I am not attacking all southerners as many were not involved in slavery by a moral disdain or lack of money to do so or both.
I have a nuanced view on what you have said. I neither hate or like history. To me it just is. In truth, a small percentage of Southern slaves actually came from Africa. After the end of the African slave trade, the population was self generated. In every way, they were Americans. In an authoritarian country, serfs in Imperial Russia for example, there was no Underground Rail Road. A serf could not aspire to cross a river & be free. Because they were Americans, slaves could take their masters to court & win. No Indian peon in the Andes could dream of doing that.
A slave in the South knew that their bondage was a violation of everything the USA stands for. The slave-holders knew it, too.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Let all join together and think about this: should we blame the Southern American Slave for his slavery because he came from Africa? *edited* It seems to me that I am constantly having to “rehash the evils of slavery” simply because there is a ton of people who constantly try to mitigate and distort its truthful history. I do not attack slavery because it is limited to the South. I attack it because it is morally evil anywhere it is found. When I attack slavery I am not attacking all southerners as many were not involved in slavery by a moral disdain o lack of money to do so or both.
Think there is a difference between teaching history and preaching history.

Because in teaching history one should point out many of the time didn't find it morally evil, that is neither mitigating nor distorting the truthful history as its simply presenting it in a correct historical context. Would think understanding the why and how something happens is as important as the events themselves to understanding them.

History is the past events, people and their beliefs, really has little to do with ours today. In history the emphasis should be what they believed, not what we believe today.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
I disagree with your position and find a contradiction in your line of reasoning. The history of past events, people, and their belief system has a great deal to do with our today World. The historical process is a series of historical developments linked together that can be progressive or retrogressive or mixture of both. One historical time period built upon another is the generally accept foundation of social studies. Therefore, what they believed in the past must be correctly understood, in order to know, why we understand as we do our World today. If one denies this process one is simply providing immunity and mitigation for the failures and wrongdoings of those in a prior historical time period for their poisoning the future generations.

The Great Rub is always what is the “correct historical context”? It is why the study of history is endlessly enjoyable and anyways full of surprises. What a strange and odd saying: “preaching history”. How does one study a past historical period and not judge it a progressive time or a retrogressive time? But then you state, “Would think understanding the how and why something happen is as important as the events themselves to understand them.” You are as guilty as I am in making a judgement (preaching?) when you make your “understanding” in the “how and why” of that historical process. Then you appear in denial of Art of Extrapolation and/or Comparative History between the then and the now. You should fee yourselves of such limitations and be more open minded.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
I fully understand and agree that the American Negro Slave of the 19th​ century should be seen as an American and not an African solely. It is not understandable to me to say an American Negro Slave could take his Master to Court in the Slavery South and win in a Court. I would assume the American Negro Slave while denied the right to be able to write or read anything was told repeatedly that his slave condition was lawfully constitutional in his current governance that he exist within.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I disagree with your position and find a contradiction in your line of reasoning. The history of past events, people, and their belief system has a great deal to do with our today World. The historical process is a series of historical developments linked together that can be progressive or retrogressive or mixture of both. One historical time period built upon another is the generally accept foundation of social studies. Therefore, what they believed in the past must be correctly understood, in order to know, why we understand as we do our World today. If one denies this process one is simply providing immunity and mitigation for the failures and wrongdoings of those in a prior historical time period for their poisoning the future generations.

The Great Rub is always what is the “correct historical context”? It is why the study of history is endlessly enjoyable and anyways full of surprises. What a strange and odd saying: “preaching history”. How does one study a past historical period and not judge it a progressive time or a retrogressive time? But then you state, “Would think understanding the how and why something happen is as important as the events themselves to understand them.” You are as guilty as I am in making a judgement (preaching?) when you make your “understanding” in the “how and why” of that historical process. Then you appear in denial of Art of Extrapolation and/or Comparative History between the then and the now. You should fee yourselves of such limitations and be more open minded.
No I am not preaching or moralizing at all, as it's rather meaningless.

Am simply saying events should be presented, then the proper historical context presented to explain why the reasoning and why the events actually happened. Most history wasn't occuring randomly or without reasoning from the historical participants.....For example

People didn't randomly decide to have or allow slavery in a nation, whether the US or CS.

*Edited*

There were in fact other events in play that lead to the attitudes and reasoning behind historical events, they should be presented, it makes them neither "right" or "wrong". Moral values are whatever any individual wishes to assign to them, as they certainly aren't universal through history at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
I fully understand and agree that the American Negro Slave of the 19th​ century should be seen as an American and not an African solely. It is not understandable to me to say an American Negro Slave could take his Master to Court in the Slavery South and win in a Court. I would assume the American Negro Slave while denied the right to be able to write or read anything was told repeatedly that his slave condition was lawfully constitutional in his current governance that he exist within.
If you will look up online the sites that are dedicated to lawsuits involving slaves you will be enlightened. In Alabama, for example, a slave who killed his master in self defense appealed to the state Supreme Court. The court ruled that slaves had a right to self defense. In Tennessee, where slaves were literate, the lawsuits are particularly interesting. The only county in Tennessee where it was illegal to teach slaves to read was in Memphis.
Needless to say, slaves were on the loosing side of decisions that are grossly unjust by modern standards. What is remarkable is that slaves had their day in court.
Slaves that were freed or relieved legacies in wills are the source of thousands of lawsuits. The civil courts in slave states wrestled with guilt ridden slave-holder’s fear of going to hell’s deathbed conversations. The legal fights between 1/2 siblings were about what you would expect. Of course, the white siblings had the chance of selling their brothers & sisters while the will was in probate v
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
These court cases of Negroes taking whites to Southern court system are mere aberrations. I assume they involved mainly slaves that are biologically related to the other side of case defendants. And they were mostly somewhat educated and even many were Freed Negroes. The overwhelming majority of Negro Southern Slaves were shut out of the Southern court system one way or the other. I appreciate your work in finding those type cases. Thanks!
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
I think I understanding what is being said here. Let us give an example: a white southerner now has the resources to purchase some Negro Slaves and engages in slave plantation system. Future historians reflect upon this historical event. One said: the plantation owner is involved in the immoral act of enslavement of a human being. The other said: the plantation owner is involved in the legal and socially acceptable southern slavery system as an honest businessman. The first one has a universal understanding that human slavery is an evil act of violence and kidnapping of others and their imprisonment without a due process of law (the WHAT). Someone was kidnapped violently and sold to slavery with their offspring wrongly condemned to eternal slavery (the WHY). This is showing a proper context of historical background of the why and what.

The second one is saying: the only WHAT I need to know is that it is legal form of labor and the only WHY I need to know is that I need to steal the slave’s labor production as my own profit because the southern slavery system allows me to do so. The right or wrong has no play in this decision and is simply blocked out. Therefore, in this second man thinking of the “proper historical context” is conveniently ignored and the mitigated and the false “context” (that it is legal and socially acceptable) is substituted so as to ignore a subject of morality.
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
These court cases of Negroes taking whites to Southern court system are mere aberrations. I assume they involved mainly slaves that are biologically related to the other side of case defendants. And they were mostly somewhat educated and even many were Freed Negroes. The overwhelming majority of Negro Southern Slaves were shut out of the Southern court system one way or the other. I appreciate your work in finding those type cases. Thanks!
You obviously have not read the records of Alabama Supreme Court online. The limits of what slave-holders could do & could not do ; when slaves were given the status of human beings came from those cases.

No thanks needed. There is no work involved, at this point a simple google search will yield thousands of lawsuits involving slaves in the Southern states.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
There is a book I've had on my Amazon list for some time on the topic of slaves and the court system. I keep meaning to read it, and I'm going to pull the trigger one of these days. "Black Litigants in the Antebellum American South" by Kimberly Welch.

In the antebellum Natchez district, in the heart of slave country, black people sued white people in all-white courtrooms. They sued to enforce the terms of their contracts, recover unpaid debts, recuperate back wages, and claim damages for assault. They sued in conflicts over property and personal status. And they often won. Based on new research conducted in courthouse basements and storage sheds in rural Mississippi and Louisiana, Kimberly Welch draws on over 1,000 examples of free and enslaved black litigants who used the courts to protect their interests and reconfigure their place in a tense society.​
To understand their success, Welch argues that we must understand the language that they used--the language of property, in particular--to make their claims recognizable and persuasive to others and to link their status as owner to the ideal of a free, autonomous citizen. In telling their stories, Welch reveals a previously unknown world of black legal activity, one that is consequential for understanding the long history of race, rights, and civic inclusion in America.​

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1469636433/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
 

Rhea Cole

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 2, 2019
Location
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
There is a book I've had on my Amazon list for some time on the topic of slaves and the court system. I keep meaning to read it, and I'm going to pull the trigger one of these days. "Black Litigants in the Antebellum American South" by Kimberly Welch.

In the antebellum Natchez district, in the heart of slave country, black people sued white people in all-white courtrooms. They sued to enforce the terms of their contracts, recover unpaid debts, recuperate back wages, and claim damages for assault. They sued in conflicts over property and personal status. And they often won. Based on new research conducted in courthouse basements and storage sheds in rural Mississippi and Louisiana, Kimberly Welch draws on over 1,000 examples of free and enslaved black litigants who used the courts to protect their interests and reconfigure their place in a tense society.​
To understand their success, Welch argues that we must understand the language that they used--the language of property, in particular--to make their claims recognizable and persuasive to others and to link their status as owner to the ideal of a free, autonomous citizen. In telling their stories, Welch reveals a previously unknown world of black legal activity, one that is consequential for understanding the long history of race, rights, and civic inclusion in America.​

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1469636433/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
The reality of Southern slave-holding is far more nuanced than would seem likely on the face of it.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
I have my copy of SOUTHERN SLAVERY AND THE LAW 1619-1860 by THOMAS D. MORRIS and I have looked much of it over. I find no themes of the "Happy Slave" cited and many interesting small event aberrations. It is recommended and has 575 pages much details.
 

Sequim

Cadet
Joined
May 13, 2020
Excellent presentation and follow-up discussion. It brings some interesting questions to mind about how much the culture of the day can be used to justify--or at least rationalize--the behavior of the day.
 
Top