Slavery tidbits -

[TheGallantPelham17]

This past weekend, I was visiting my mom and I came across a history textbook that she used when she was a school teacher that had a plethora of Civil War information and thought I would share some of what I found.

Interestingly, I learned for the first time that the role of 'slave driver' was always held by a slave - typically by a younger, able-bodied individual and obviously always a male. The position of slave driver was a coveted post and considered to be one of the best jobs outside of being a domestic house slave. I believe without a doubt most folks assume that a slave driver was a white person who was employed by the plantation owner. Not true!

The slave driver's boss was called the 'overseer'. The overseer was almost always a hired hand who was not part of the plantation owner's family. Occasionally, an overseer was even someone from the North, but for the most part, plantation owners preferred to hire someone from the South to serve as an overseer. An overseer was paid at the end of the growing season either in the form of a predetermined, negotiated amount or in some instances an overseer was paid a percentage of what that season's harvest produced.

The master (the owner of the plantation) was the CEO of the entire operation.

 

[matthew mckeon]

What is this wonderful book? When was it published?(sounds like an older book, from your post).

 

[TheGallantPelham17]

What is this wonderful book? When was it published?(sounds like an older book, from your post).

The name of the book is the History of Alabama. It's a big book (around 600 pages). My mom taught Alabama history from 1968-1975. The book is at my mom's house, but when I head back over to see her in a couple of weekends, I'll probably bring it home with me for a while and I can tell you more about it. It is a treasure. I could barely put it down the entire day on Saturday. It covers the period of time when paleo-Indians roamed Alabama, Alabama's membership in the Mississippi Territory, antebellum Alabama, Civil War Alabama, and post-War Alabama all the way until 1971.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Pelham,
I'm a little bit afraid that a school textbook approved for use in Alabama schools in the 1960s might be a bit....biased to a certain point of view. Not that there isn't a lot of good info in it, but think a bit.

Use of black overseers has been documented. In "Tombee" the diary of Thomas Chaplin, a slaveowner in South Carolina, he praises his black overseer for saving Chaplin(a lazy fellow, as he admits)a lot of work. Chaplin is miffed later now when the overseer takes an unauthorized and permanent leave of absence.

 

[TheGallantPelham17]

Pelham,
I'm a little bit afraid that a school textbook approved for use in Alabama schools in the 1960s might be a bit....biased to a certain point of view. Not that there isn't a lot of good info in it, but think a bit.

Use of black overseers has been documented. In "Tombee" the diary of Thomas Chaplin, a slaveowner in South Carolina, he praises his black overseer for saving Chaplin(a lazy fellow, as he admits)a lot of work. Chaplin is miffed later now when the overseer takes an unauthorized and permanent leave of absence.

Nah.... it didn't appear anymore biased than today's textbooks written by non-Southerners (and blacks who want to cover up details such as that) that leave very important information out, therefore distorting American history and leaving so many people ignorant to the real facts. This particular book simply stated what was the case back in the 1800's in the South on these plantations. In fact, in one particular chapter, it mentions how slavery was an immoral practice. Very interesting book.

 

[Karen Lips]

textbooks

Gallant,

You are right about today's textbooks being biased.

 

[DHPatrick]

Pelham,
I'm a little bit afraid that a school textbook approved for use in Alabama schools in the 1960s might be a bit....biased to a certain point of view. Not that there isn't a lot of good info in it, but think a bit.

Use of black overseers has been documented. In "Tombee" the diary of Thomas Chaplin, a slaveowner in South Carolina, he praises his black overseer for saving Chaplin(a lazy fellow, as he admits)a lot of work. Chaplin is miffed later now when the overseer takes an unauthorized and permanent leave of absence.

matthew mckeon

Having been schooled in Lousiana in the 1960's I believe I have to disagree with your comment. I think as always it is a matter of perspective. Had I been schooled in New Hampshire, I'd probably agree with you. Again I say it is matter of perspective.

 

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members;

I have not found any 'history' books; other than the Official Records of the Rebellion; without bias.

Everybody has to put their slant into their writings; and different authors write to a different audience.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

 

[DHPatrick]

Dear List Members;

I have not found any 'history' books; other than the Official Records of the Rebellion; without bias.

Everybody has to put their slant into their writings; and different authors write to a different audience.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

M.E. Wolf,

I don't know whether to applaude you or cry foul. I'd certainly like to think that our historians are truly without prejudicial opinion. Maybe that is too much to ask? I really don't want to criticize you, just to reflect. Guess I hope it is because I believe I'm a 'cup half full' person. Did I say that wrong?

 

[timewalker]

Don:

Everyone is biased. It is a fact of life. That is not to condemn anyone (historians or otherwise), but merely a statement of an accepted fact. Everyone has a personal agenda whether they admit it or even recognize it or not.

We recognize this in law. Honest Jodges admit that although they are supposed to be completely fair and impartial, such a stance is impossible. We come to any situation with the baggage of our entire lives and with everything that has shaped and molded us since birth. These all affect who we are and how we view the world.

I would amend my friend Wolf's statement in that the Official Records are not unbiased history, either. In fact, they are perhaps more biased that many other histories. The people writing the reports had various agendas which colored the way they wrote. Not to say would should not credit the reports or give them great weight, but they do not tell the whole story and sometimes obscure the truth.

When I look at myself, if I write a history of the war I will bring to the task certain prejudices and preconceived notions. The best historians can overcome this to a degree, but no one can overcome it completely.

The fact that all histories are biased is not an indictment but a truism and one which must be kept in mind when studying history. One must balance different sources and accounts to try to come as close as possible to the truth. Even "hard numbers" such as statistics cannot simply be accepted at face value since there are inherent biases in the gathering and manipulation of data underlying the statistics.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

Don't they teach critical thinking in these schools of which you speak?
You know, "statements against interest," "establishing credibility," etc.
I find it important to read both sides of an event to get an idea of what was going on.

Coincidentally, the last book I read was "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass" which provides an invaluable perspective.
It is entirely consistent with the framework of details provided by the then ruling class but is considerably more graphic and explicit in detail.
If the desire is to study history rather than to indulge personal bias, this is an indispensable read.

 

[fl_below]

Don:

Everyone is biased. It is a fact of life. That is not to condemn anyone (historians or otherwise), but merely a statement of an accepted fact. Everyone has a personal agenda whether they admit it or even recognize it or not.

We recognize this in law. Honest Jodges admit that although they are supposed to be completely fair and impartial, such a stance is impossible. We come to any situation with the baggage of our entire lives and with everything that has shaped and molded us since birth. These all affect who we are and how we view the world.

I would amend my friend Wolf's statement in that the Official Records are not unbiased history, either. In fact, they are perhaps more biased that many other histories. The people writing the reports had various agendas which colored the way they wrote. Not to say would should not credit the reports or give them great weight, but they do not tell the whole story and sometimes obscure the truth.

When I look at myself, if I write a history of the war I will bring to the task certain prejudices and preconceived notions. The best historians can overcome this to a degree, but no one can overcome it completely.

The fact that all histories are biased is not an indictment but a truism and one which must be kept in mind when studying history. One must balance different sources and accounts to try to come as close as possible to the truth. Even "hard numbers" such as statistics cannot simply be accepted at face value since there are inherent biases in the gathering and manipulation of data underlying the statistics.

Timewalker;

So how are we to tell our history, then? How to get a change of venue? Have Charles Dickens write our history?

The South must have had some redeeming qualities to them... Secession has never been proven to be Treason, nor anything more than irritating to the self-anointed keepers of the flame...

Both sides claim Lee. Could he be allowed to speak for both sides?

Uriel Franklin Below

 

[timewalker]

Timewalker;

So how are we to tell our history, then? How to get a change of venue? Have Charles Dickens write our history?

The South must have had some redeeming qualities to them... Secession has never been proven to be Treason, nor anything more than irritating to the self-anointed keepers of the flame...

Both sides claim Lee. Could he be allowed to speak for both sides?

Uriel Franklin Below

We are to "tell our history" as we always have. It is not a condemnation to say that all men are biased; it is a fact of human nature. In order to understand history, however, one must recognize this bias and take it into account. Otherwise, one takes a one-sided story as gospel and discounts all evidence to the contrary. For instance, Beowulf repeated citations to Davis' memoire as if it were holy writ even when it is contradicted by direct evidence to the contrary.

Even were Charles Dickens to write our history, it would be biased in favor of his own biases, prejudices and pre-conceived notions. Likewise, we cannot let Lee speak for both sides as Lee himself is obviously biased. His words must be weighed against other evidence the same as any other. It is a poor scientist who discards evidence which does not support his hypothesis and a poor historian who discounts evidence out of hand which does not support his preconceptions.

We must try, as hard as it is, to overcome our innate prejudices and suspicions in reading history. We must have an open mind and not automatically discount anything which takes us out of our comfort zone.

As to the rest of your post, as I never said that the South did not have any redeeming qualities, I will not be baited.

 

[matthew mckeon]

Everybody understands that folks in history, at the time, had their own beliefs and had to back these beliefs up with action and take the consequences.

Historians decades or centuries after the events they study, have their own prejudices and beliefs to be sure. The French have a school of academic thought that their is no truth in history, only competing narratives.

However, if we study a situation, or event in the past, it is legitimate to draw conclusions. The parrot cry of "bias" is too often a substitution for: "He disagrees with me." When I sold my house a few years back, the buyers were afraid of being cheated. It struck me that anyone so worried about being cheated was probably a cheater themselves.

In math we call it "direct variation" the cry of bias and the amount of bias in the crier both rise at the same time.

 

[timewalker]

Everybody understands that folks in history, at the time, had their own beliefs and had to back these beliefs up with action and take the consequences.

Historians decades or centuries after the events they study, have their own prejudices and beliefs to be sure. The French have a school of academic thought that their is no truth in history, only competing narratives.

However, if we study a situation, or event in the past, it is legitimate to draw conclusions. The parrot cry of "bias" is too often a substitution for: "He disagrees with me." When I sold my house a few years back, the buyers were afraid of being cheated. It struck me that anyone so worried about being cheated was probably a cheater themselves.

In math we call it "direct variation" the cry of bias and the amount of bias in the crier both rise at the same time.

I agree. There is a school of history which states that history must be rewritten every generation because each generation must draw their own conclusions from history.

However, in drawing those conclusions, one must realize the "bias" inherent in the system. I agree that a cry of "bias" is often quick and easy way to dscount someone who disagrees with one's own view, just as today calling someone a "racist" or "bigot" or alleging that they are prejudiced is a way to avoid addressing the valid points raised by another. It is generally easier to attack the messenger than the message.

 

[fl_below]

We are to "tell our history" as we always have. It is not a condemnation to say that all men are biased; it is a fact of human nature. In order to understand history, however, one must recognize this bias and take it into account. Otherwise, one takes a one-sided story as gospel and discounts all evidence to the contrary. For instance, Beowulf repeated citations to Davis' memoire as if it were holy writ even when it is contradicted by direct evidence to the contrary.

Even were Charles Dickens to write our history, it would be biased in favor of his own biases, prejudices and pre-conceived notions. Likewise, we cannot let Lee speak for both sides as Lee himself is obviously biased. His words must be weighed against other evidence the same as any other. It is a poor scientist who discards evidence which does not support his hypothesis and a poor historian who discounts evidence out of hand which does not support his preconceptions.

We must try, as hard as it is, to overcome our innate prejudices and suspicions in reading history. We must have an open mind and not automatically discount anything which takes us out of our comfort zone.

As to the rest of your post, as I never said that the South did not have any redeeming qualities, I will not be baited.

Forgive me, sir.

I did not mean to imply that you had said the South had no redeeming qualities. I said that they must have had some. I was hoping you could list a couple.

I am familiar with the one called BEOWULF. He had all the polish of sandpaper, and was given to diatribe and hyperbole. While his basic message was actually a great argument, he lacked both the tact and the facts of a Battalion.

To Beowulf's credit, however, he admitted this in his
answers to Battalion, and always gave place to the greater
Battalion in his replies.

Why he is gone, I do not know. I did not read the post that finally 'got' him, but I suspect he knew it was coming, just like the 'real' Beowulf was killed by a dragon.

I did not completely agree with him, because he lacked the capacity for True Debate, however noble may have been his desire to be a Confederate Shock Trooper.

Enough about him. Except for one thing. Please don't confuse me with him. I do read the sources he quoted and I do quote from them, at times. But it is Jefferson Davis speaking, and not me. Beowulf could not separate himself from Davis.

But I do not get drawn into the 'Baiting Game' you mentioned above, nor did I mean to 'bait' you.

Beowulf, I believe, did. He got drawn in and seemed to enjoy the exchange a bit too much.

If I am challenged, on a point, rest assured that we shall exhaust the challenge, rather than 'bring in
more artillery', and start a full scale range war.

As to the remainder of your post, what you have told me here is that we are going to have to actually read Davis and the others (and anyone else who was there) and take a mean average of their words, in order to distill the truth of the times from the aggregate.

Which is right. I suppose I shall have to read Sherman, and Grant, which is about as palatable to me as you reading the RISE AND FALL.

But it is an admirable challenge for us both, is it not?

Thank you, sir.

Uriel Franklin Below

 

[ole]

As to the remainder of your post, what you have told me here is that we are going to have to actually read Davis and the others (and anyone else who was there) and take a mean average of their words, in order to distill the truth of the times from the aggregate.

It doesn't work that way. Historians have opinions; one might hope that those opinions are generated from facts. Memoires, particularly Sherman's and Grant's and Davis's, are things the way they were remembered. That is, interesting literature and very little reliable history. Even much of M.E. Wolf's beloved ORs are a collection of reports, each of which must be evaluated for excessive praise and CYA.

It might be possible to strike an average (not a mean) among reputable historians (Davis, Stephens, Grant and Sherman excluded), but not between the opinions of a Stampp and Davis.

ole

 

[timewalker]

It doesn't work that way. Historians have opinions; one might hope that those opinions are generated from facts. Memoires, particularly Sherman's and Grant's and Davis's, are things the way they were remembered. That is, interesting literature and very little reliable history. Even much of M.E. Wolf's beloved ORs are a collection of reports, each of which must be evaluated for excessive praise and CYA.

It might be possible to strike an average (not a mean) among reputable historians (Davis, Stephens, Grant and Sherman excluded), but not between the opinions of a Stampp and Davis.

ole

The way they were remembered, plus a little post-war spin...

For instance, Grant liked Halleck during the war, but after the war found out that Halleck tried to sell him down the river during the war. So in Grant's memoires, Halleck does not come across very well.

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

... Halleck tried to sell him down the river during the war. ...

OT, but fascinating choice of words, given the context.

 

[fl_below]

It doesn't work that way. Historians have opinions; one might hope that those opinions are generated from facts. Memoires, particularly Sherman's and Grant's and Davis's, are things the way they were remembered. That is, interesting literature and very little reliable history. Even much of M.E. Wolf's beloved ORs are a collection of reports, each of which must be evaluated for excessive praise and CYA.

It might be possible to strike an average (not a mean) among reputable historians (Davis, Stephens, Grant and Sherman excluded), but not between the opinions of a Stampp and Davis.

ole

So who could we get to tell history?

I mean, it's obvious the South will still lose...

But would the war take on new dimensions if the
South were seen as an absolute value rather than
as traitors and murderers of Good Northern Sons?

As Davis was not tried for Treason, and released
with 'time served', can't the South expect a similar thing?

New England is not condemned for losing the Super Bowl, even though they won everything else!

Try taking away our gas cars in favor of green house emissions...

We won't do it.

Or try legalizing illegal Mexican aliens simply because they are here...

Citizenship is not so simple as just 'being here'.

How far removed is this from the Africans, freed or slave, during the 1860's?

I just want their day in court. Not a criminal court, but a Civil Court, where they are seeking a redress of grievances from American history!

U. F. Below