Dispelling the Myths

As February is black history month and also the month that Abraham Lincoln was born in a few observations regarding the issue of slavery might be appropriate. My friend Walter (Donnie) Kennedy has just had a book published called "Myths of American Slavery" (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana) in which he deals with this touchy subject in such a way as to dispel many of the popular myths that have sprung up to become part of our "national legend" if you will.

In our politically correct universe nowadays, we have been spoon-fed much blatant poison which tells us that slavery was a particularly "Southern" institution, and that all Southern planters and farmers were slave magnates, owning several hundred slaves and they all made a daily ritual of beating them all with a bullwhip every morning before breakfast to get their jollies for the day. We have all been "educated" in this "Uncle Tom's Cabin" syndrome for so long that most cannot separate fact from fiction anymore. This is exactly what Donnie Kennedy is seeking to do with this new book, separate fact from fiction and wheat from chaff. In fact, Bob Harrison, the black man who wrote the forward for Donnie's book observed that, "As an historian with a strong wealth of knowledge about Confederates of color, I already knew that much of what is being taught as 'gospel' regarding slavery is highly suspect at best." I have to concur with Mr. Harrison's assessment.

I remember talking to a lady several years ago about the slavery question and she went on to explain to me that I could tell her nothing about it, as she already knew all about it. She had seen "Roots" on televison and her wealth of knowledge on the slavery issue had been gleaned from that program. For her, if she saw it on television, it was real and that was that. Case closed!

Donnie Kennedy goes a long way toward dispelling these myths in his book. He shows that slavery was not just a "Southern" institution, but had been widely practiced in the North as well and he goes back and shows where it existed in ancient times and right up to the present day in parts of Africa. He deals with slavery in the New World, other parts of the Americas besides the American South, and notes that, even after the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted, slavery continued in the Americas, in Cuba for another ten years and in Brazil for another twenty two years, and the people running those countries were people the United States government had cordial relations with. Interestingly enough, this does not seem to have bothered the abolitionist crowd overly much.

Donnie packs his book with interesting facts you hardly seem to find anywhere else, most especially in our current crop of "history" books. He notes on page 24: "One overlooked fact is that in the two decades after the adoption of the United States Constitution (1788) manumission, (the voluntary freeing of slaves by a slaveholder) doubled each decade in the South." He also noted white slavery, both in Europe and the Americas. He referred to David B. Davis, an investigator of the slave trade, who noted that, in the 17th century, white slavery was not uncommon "from Virginia to Barbados." He observed that during the 17th & 18th centuries, in England, as people were removed from their land, "a class of poor whites grew at an alarming rate. So great did their numbers become that laws were passed to 'control' these poor whites. From these laws, many poor white folks were sold into actual slavery or proto-slavery both in England and the Americas."

And along with all the other bilge we've been fed regarding slavery, we have been fed even more about "Honest Abe" the "great emancipator." We have had it dutifully drummed into us how bad it was for blacks in the South and what a paradise they had in the North as free men. Have you ever wondered why the infamous "Underground Railroad" ferried the slaves all the way to Canada instead of stopping in some friendly Northern state? The simple reason was that the Northerners didn't want the slaves stopping permanently in their states to make homes. They were, in the main, less tolerant of blacks than were the Southern people. Donnie gives ua a few interesting facts on this as well. He notes, on page 165: "African-Americans were successfully barred from voting in New Jersey in 1807, in Connecticut in 1814, in Rhode Island in 1822, and in Pennsylvania in 1838. Add to these the state of Illinois, which in 1862 (while its sons were pillaging the South), by an overwhelming vote of the people, passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that 'no negro or mulatto shall immigrate or settle in this state." Such tolerance just warms your heart, doesn't it?

Donnie Kennedy noted, as have others, that Lincoln actually felt blacks to be inferior and this, unfortunately, was a widespread notion at the time in all sections of the country. But Donnie has also noted that members of Lincoln's own cabinet entertained the same feelings. He mentioned Gideon Wells, Secretary of the Navy, and William Seward in particular. And he tells us that Wells "referring to the taking of Indian lands during the War, was racially motivated in defending the Federal government's action against Native Americans. He stated that the Indians in Minnesota 'have good lands which white men want and mean to have'." And he noted that Seward's sentiments did not lag far behind. Seward said that "The white man needs this continent to labor in and must have it." Even an English abolitionist, Jamed Buckingham, in 1842, noted "This is only one among many proofs I had witnessed of the fact, that the prejudice of color is not nearly so strong in the South as in the North."

If one wishes to take the trouble to learn, there are many books out there now that deal with the War of Northern Aggression and the reason for it. Donnie Kennedy's latest book dealing with the slavery issue is another of those that should be read so one might gain a little more perspective on this complex issue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a Yankee (Bostonian), who lived in the south (Alabama) in 1957 the diference in the racial attitudes was readily apparent.

In the south they don't seem to mind how close the blacks get, as long as they don't get to big.

In the north we don't care how big they get, as long as they don't get to close. -Tom

"One overlooked fact is that in the two decades after the adoption of the United States Constitution (1788) manumission, (the voluntary freeing of slaves by a slaveholder) doubled each decade in the South."

I believe that slavery was seen as not too economically viable at that time. This is (I believe) one reason why importation of slaves from Africa was made illegal in 1805. There was no one pushing for continued importation, because slavery was in decline. But then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, cotton became a huge cash crop and slavery was revived. I also believe that slavery was once again in economic decline in the 1850's and that many contemporary chroniclers (Frederick Law Olmsted, for one) predicted that the South would voluntarily end slavery in the near future. Perhaps this was wishful thinking -- but perhaps wager laborers might have made more sense than unmotivated slaves.

This article also mentions the curious fact that the Underground Railroad took slaves to Canada and points out that Blacks were not popular in the Northern US states. That may be true. But it should also be pointed out that the slavecatcher laws allowed escaped slaves to be dragged back down South if found in a northern state. Under such circumstances, Canada was the safer place to live.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.