Dude, this piece is an atrocity. Insultingly ahistorical to anyone who's researched American slavery. I don't even know where to begin. First, slaves were nothing more than economic tools. They were often literally worked to death, especially in the sugar plantations of Mississippi. Why? Economics. It was cheaper to work them to dea…
Dude, this piece is an atrocity. Insultingly ahistorical to anyone who's researched American slavery. I don't even know where to begin. First, slaves were nothing more than economic tools. They were often literally worked to death, especially in the sugar plantations of Mississippi. Why? Economics. It was cheaper to work them to death than to let them work slower, or use more slaves, and to keep and feed them year round. This is a historical fact. They were treated like farm animals, fed like farm animals, just enough crap food to keep them going. This piece reads like one of those atrocious "Hitler was a great leader, the truth about him has been all lies!" tropes. Really it's that bad. Read Frederick Law Olmstead's accounts from the time itself, or the journals of Frances Kemble. Plenty of first hand accounts from the actual period describing
Describing the reality of it. I've researched the hell out of this from first hand accounts of the period and written about it myself. The movie "12 Years a Slave" is actually an extremely accurate portrayal of the reality of being a slave. Meanwhile I'll unsubscribe from your substack because there is seriously no excuse for anyone with an IQ over 65 to print such garbage
Definitely can’t argue with pretty much everything you said Phillip. But if we’re dedicated to uncovering the truth, I think it’s necessary to concede the op-ed was fairly accurate on a few points, with the Origins of the slave trade from the Dahomey people and how modern scholarship has untruthfully revised certain parts of history’s more recent events being a few examples.
As an avid student student of the subject, you would most likely be aware of this more than most people, but the entire history of this issue is so much more complex than what most people realize, or may even want to admit.
For example, while the South as a whole may have just adapted and further utilized a slave trade that existed long before them, it’s also very obvious from reading first hand accounts that racial politics and antiquated thoughts on certain races being inferior played a MAJOR role in defining the politics of the day. And almost every one, anti-slavery & proslavery alike, was guilty of thinking that way: from Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln.
The pre-war South may not have invented it but, due to the environment they found themselves in, no one can deny that they wished to perpetuate the Peculiar Institution for economic reasons (as you well stated). Feelings of superiority over another race was the next ‘logical’ (and beyond terrible) step.
But like I mentioned at the beginning, it’s even way more complicated than that.
Yes it's complicated, and there are aspects to it that most people don't know. For instance, before they started importing Africans, they would use white people as slaves. There was a market for them, people who were kidnapped right off the docks in the UK or Europe. Thing is, white people could easily escape and disappear into the crowds. Having black African slaves took care of that problem. They couldn't escape and blend in. Also there were slaves who were so interbred with the whites that they looked as white as any Caucasian, yet were still kept as slaves, and talked like slaves and thought of themselves as slaves. One of the truly disturbing features of slavery in the American South was the fact that the slave owners or other whites (such as a caretaker or overseer) would have children with the blacks, and these children were the half-brothers and sisters of the fully white offspring, and these kids wouldn't even see what was coming until a certain age when the "black" ones were were forced to work in the fields while their white half-siblings didn't. Just so F*#!ed up.
Dude, this piece is an atrocity. Insultingly ahistorical to anyone who's researched American slavery. I don't even know where to begin. First, slaves were nothing more than economic tools. They were often literally worked to death, especially in the sugar plantations of Mississippi. Why? Economics. It was cheaper to work them to death than to let them work slower, or use more slaves, and to keep and feed them year round. This is a historical fact. They were treated like farm animals, fed like farm animals, just enough crap food to keep them going. This piece reads like one of those atrocious "Hitler was a great leader, the truth about him has been all lies!" tropes. Really it's that bad. Read Frederick Law Olmstead's accounts from the time itself, or the journals of Frances Kemble. Plenty of first hand accounts from the actual period describing
Describing the reality of it. I've researched the hell out of this from first hand accounts of the period and written about it myself. The movie "12 Years a Slave" is actually an extremely accurate portrayal of the reality of being a slave. Meanwhile I'll unsubscribe from your substack because there is seriously no excuse for anyone with an IQ over 65 to print such garbage
I shared an op ed piece written by an intelligent person.
We are not an echo chamber in this substack.
We review all kinds of news, data and opinions here.
PS I enjoyed 12 Years A Slave.
Definitely can’t argue with pretty much everything you said Phillip. But if we’re dedicated to uncovering the truth, I think it’s necessary to concede the op-ed was fairly accurate on a few points, with the Origins of the slave trade from the Dahomey people and how modern scholarship has untruthfully revised certain parts of history’s more recent events being a few examples.
As an avid student student of the subject, you would most likely be aware of this more than most people, but the entire history of this issue is so much more complex than what most people realize, or may even want to admit.
For example, while the South as a whole may have just adapted and further utilized a slave trade that existed long before them, it’s also very obvious from reading first hand accounts that racial politics and antiquated thoughts on certain races being inferior played a MAJOR role in defining the politics of the day. And almost every one, anti-slavery & proslavery alike, was guilty of thinking that way: from Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln.
The pre-war South may not have invented it but, due to the environment they found themselves in, no one can deny that they wished to perpetuate the Peculiar Institution for economic reasons (as you well stated). Feelings of superiority over another race was the next ‘logical’ (and beyond terrible) step.
But like I mentioned at the beginning, it’s even way more complicated than that.
Yes it's complicated, and there are aspects to it that most people don't know. For instance, before they started importing Africans, they would use white people as slaves. There was a market for them, people who were kidnapped right off the docks in the UK or Europe. Thing is, white people could easily escape and disappear into the crowds. Having black African slaves took care of that problem. They couldn't escape and blend in. Also there were slaves who were so interbred with the whites that they looked as white as any Caucasian, yet were still kept as slaves, and talked like slaves and thought of themselves as slaves. One of the truly disturbing features of slavery in the American South was the fact that the slave owners or other whites (such as a caretaker or overseer) would have children with the blacks, and these children were the half-brothers and sisters of the fully white offspring, and these kids wouldn't even see what was coming until a certain age when the "black" ones were were forced to work in the fields while their white half-siblings didn't. Just so F*#!ed up.
Also in some cities such as Charleston, there were free black business owners who owned black slaves. Kind of awkward, no?