School defends slavery booklet (Critic says text is 'window dressing')

News Observer ^ | Dec 9, 2004 | T. KEUNG HUI

[mac_truck]

Students at one of the area's largest Christian schools are reading a controversial booklet that critics say whitewashes Southern slavery with its view that slaves lived "a life of plenty, of simple pleasures." Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using "Southern Slavery, As It Was," a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren't treated as badly as people think.

Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.

"You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective," he said.

'SOUTHERN SLAVERY, AS IT WAS' Here are some excerpts from the booklet:

* "To say the least, it is strange that the thing the Bible condemns (slave-trading) brings very little opprobrium upon the North, yet that which the Bible allows (slave-ownership) has brought down all manner of condemnation upon the South." (page 22)

* "As we have already mentioned, the 'peculiar institution' of slavery was not perfect or sinless, but the reality was a far cry from the horrific descriptions given to us in modern histories." (page 22)

* "Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence." (page 24)

* "Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)

[rdb3]

Slavery still exists in Africa but is ignored by American black leaders. It seems as if blacks owning other blacks is OK with them.

Slavery does continue to exist in Africa. I'm kept aware of what is going on and who is doing what through the site IAbolish.

As far as "black leaders" are concerned, they aren't leaders at all. We should not even foist upon them a title like that.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "As for Uncle Toms Cabin,this was supposed to have taken place at Little Eva plantation in southern Natchitoches Parish.Some con artist took a slave cabin to the Worlds Fair in Chicago from this location and claimed it was the actual Uncle Toms Cabin."

That is funny. It is also a good example how people do not read very well. Uncle Tom's Cabin starts out in KY and winds its way to the deep south. The cabin the book refers was the one in KY where the story starts. Uncle Tom was on the move for most of the story and did not have a cabin with a multi floral rose growing on the outside.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "There are today and were then a lot of wealthy people who lacked both a moderate level of intelligence and common sense."

This is too tempting. I fear it will lead to changing the subject as we all give examples of what you mean. Allow me to lump most of them into one pot. How about 99% of Hollywierd, the NBA, Kennedys, and the DNC (have you ever seen a poor Demoncrat politician?)

[Mark in the Old South]

I like your tag line. :-)

[rdb3]

You are right but keep in mind the topic is a school that is teaching about slavery in the American South. It should not surprise if that is where the focus is and where it should be. It is one thing to mention slavery in other areas and other times but it should not be a means to change the subject.

Thank you.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "You call slavery unspeakably evil, yet the Bible doesn't go that far. The Bible clearly condemns witchcraft and homosexuality, but then tells masters to be good to their slaves."

The Bible has a message about slavery that is hard to grasp. I am not sure I fully understand it but here is a stab at it.

The Hebrews just got out of bondage and one of the first things they do is legalize slavery? Go figure. Well keep in mind the slavery they practiced was a form of bankruptcy. If you got into trouble you could be sold into slavery to pay debts. Remember they were living a little closer to the bone then 19th century planters. If you couldn't pay a debt you may be putting your creditor and his family in mortal danger as well as yourself.

The Hebrews also had something called a Jubilee year. It came every 50 years and all Hebrew slaves and debts were considered forgiven. I don't remember but I do not think this applied to slaves of foreign extraction. So what does this say about slavery? I'm not sure.

However the Catholic Church teaches (or used to teach) about the value of suffering in the salvation of man. Not just Christ's suffering but our own as well. I light of this I think it is possible to consider the danger of slavery was more serious to the slave master than it was to the slave. I am talking about spiritual matters which is the main focus of the Bible anyway. This does not go down well in a Protestant country where most people want to see God as the loudest singer of kumbyya, all love and no punishment, hell exist but is empty.

I hope I haven't changed the subject I am just trying to related what this says about slavery.

[x]

If the war had been to preserve slavery, I would have offered my sword to the South.

Ulysses S. Grant

That quote turns up a lot on the Internet, but no one's been able to give a reliable citation for it. Grant's own writings reflect a rather different view of the war. The evidence is this purported quote is one of those untrue Internet myths that doesn't deserve to go on being circulated.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "I do think I will put reading a book on American slavery at the top of my reading list."

I listed 3 books on post #26 that I recommend in addition to Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. But I warn you they are not light reading, more like the kind of thing college professors write for other college professors to read or to make their college students read so there are a few sales at least. Jordan's book was easy enough to find here in Virgina a few years back but I doubt you will be able to find it now outside a college library. It is the best of the three and had many wonderful stories to flesh out this subject. Some I really think would make fantastic movies.

One of my favorites was on the chapter on overseers. Overseers were a detested group and attracted the lowest level of society. Owners and slaves alike hated them and a slave who felt mistreated by an overseer had the right of appeal to the slave master. It was very common for the master to take the slave's side. Rarely did an overseer last a year before was fired and often as a result of the complaints from slaves.

There were exceptions such as one Virginian slave who was made overseer for a Virginian master. The master sent her (that is right the slave overseer was female) and a large group of slaves to a plantation he owned in Alabama. They know about her because of her detailed letters (yes she could read and write) which tell of acers cleared, planted and harvested, supplies bought and items sold.

Can you imagine a woman in the 19th century running a large plantation in the middle of Alabama, let alone a slave, let alone a literate slave with the only supervision her owner nearly 1000 miles away? I think this would be a great story but it would never be made because too many would "claim" it supports slavery. It is a remarkable story and truly exceptionable.

I recommend the book

[x]

Still though, if we judge the slaveholders with a 2004 mind or even a 1966 mind, they would be evil but if we were part of the culture of 1850, we might not see it as such unless we were Abolitionists. In 1850 and before, it was seen as normal, today we know better and have progressed beyond it, I hope, but we have to see that we are judging 1850 people by the values of the latter half of the 20th Century and/or early 21st.

Up to a point, I agree and would like to see the bad and good on both sides, but plenty of people out there have such a skewed view of things that the abolitionists and unionists turn out to be the "bad guys" and the slaveowners and secessionists the "good guys." The logical slight of hand is pretty astounding and if you get exposed to enough of that, and you won't have any problem condemning the slaveowners for their crimes.

Some people assume that "eventually" Southerners would realize that slavery was wrong and "get around" to abolishing it themselves, so that the true crime was the suppression of the rebellion. Leaving aside for the moment the very weighty and disputed question of whether unilateral secession was legal, such a point of view basically gives slaveowners and Southerners a "free ride" based on what one expects they would have done "at some point" and condemns Northerners for what they actually did do. I hope we can agree that that is a skewed way of looking at things.

The abolitionists certainly were often abrasive and sometimes hypocritical, but they do deserve some credit for their insight and courage. Northerners who fought for the union, their country, and the form of constitutional and representative government they grew up with may not have been modern racial egalitarians or 21st century radical libertarians, but they don't deserve the kind of abuse directed against them by those who would whitewash Southern slavery.

We ought to be able to agree that slavery and racism have been American (indeed, global) offenses, that can't be blamed all on one part of the country. But in doing so, we don't have to pretend that slavery was an especially benign institution or that those who supported it were "really" against it in some way, and those who opposed it "really" in favor of some form of slavery or tyranny.

[Mark in the Old South]

Grant owned slaves, it is a matter of record. Several famous Confederate Generals did not, Jackson for one. Lee had a body servant at one point but that was it. His wife owned slaves she inherited but the will stipulated they were to receive their freedom within 5 years. Lee was executer of the will and freed them within 2 years. This is what he was doing in Arlington when the war broke out.

[x]

Lee was obligated by the terms of the will to free his father-in-law's slaves. He took the full five years to free them as well, even though there was a war going on. Apparently, too, even though the slaves were to be freed, their attempts to escape in the meantime were punished.

Lee has a reputation as someone who "didn't support" or who even "opposed" slavery, but that's not quite true. He did express a hope that eventually slavery might be abolished, he was opposed to doing anything about abolition until in the fullness of time God chose to abolish the bondage that He had established.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strong for the former. The blacks are immeasureably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially, & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy … While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it all the aid of our prayers & all justified means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the results in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but a day.

Letter of Robert E. Lee to his wife, December 27, 1856

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "For some reason, people want to concentrate only on slavery and only in the American South. The reason is obvious. They aren't really interested in doing good, they are interested in attacking their neighbor while overlooking their own evil."

I think you are right but that is why a detailed understanding of American slavery is very valuable. It is a fine example of how good people can do bad things to their fellow man. Even the side that shows how "slaves were not treated so badly" serve the moral lesson. You can not make good out of bad. This is the point I have been trying to drive home. Good people tried to be fair and kind to their "people" but as Stowe illustrated it was not possible to make right something so wrong.

One thing that your post reminds me about and I have very little information is the role of the Vatican. A visiting French seminarian told me about the Pope's support for the South. This seems odd because the Church had a history of discouraging slavery and attacking it at points (such as the early Spanish settlements in the New World when they tried to enslave the Indians) So why the seeming change? Why support the South? He told me the Vatican saw the war against the South as about much more than Slavery. They saw it as an attack against the family and a stable agricultural way of life. A masonic plot to destroy a Christian bastion. Keep in mind the South also had the largest Catholic population at the time. I have not had time to explore more. Can anyone shed light on the Vatican's role?

[x]

I believe "bruck" is dutch/german for pants. What the osan would be I don't know.

It looks like you the meaning right. Osnabrück was a North German town known for its manufacture of coarse linens. "Osnabrucks, "osenbreges," "ostenbriges," "osnabrigs" "ozenbrigs" were various terms for the cloth and came to be associated with the trousers or pants that might be made of them. But also, "britches" or "breeches" came to mean "trousers" as well, as did "broek" in Dutch and "Hose" in German, so there's a strange connection between the name of the town and clothing.

[Non-Sequitur]

Several famous Confederate Generals did not, Jackson for one.

On the contrary, Thomas Jackson was a slave owner for much of his adult life. At one point he owned as many as 8 or 9 slaves, selling some to buy a home for he and his second wife to live in, and buying one slave 6 or 7 years of age for his wife to train as a ladies maid. In her biography of her husband, Anna Jackson descibed him as a firm but fair owner.

Lee had a body servant at one point but that was it.

On the contrary again, Lee owned slaves as some point in his life because he freed and paid passage for at least two of them to Liberia. This couple made a life for themselves in Africa, he became a Presbyterian minister and she carried on a correspondence with Mrs. Lee until the war cut off communication.

His wife owned slaves she inherited but the will stipulated they were to receive their freedom within 5 years. Lee was executer of the will and freed them within 2 years. This is what he was doing in Arlington when the war broke out.

On the contrary yet again, Lee's father-in-law died in the summer of 1857. Lee manumitted the slaves on the last day of December 1862.

[dsc]

"As a slave, anyone teaching me would be punished and I might be killed."

Now, see, that's what I'm on about. That was only true in certain times and at certain places. It was far from universally true.

So, does that make slavery a good thing? Of course not. But it does make slaveowners as a group less savage and bestial than often painted.

"I can save my money and make a better life for myself."

It was common for slaves to make and save money, and not altogether rare for them to save enough to buy their own freedom.

[dsc]

"plenty of people out there have such a skewed view of things that the abolitionists and unionists turn out to be the "bad guys" and the slaveowners and secessionists the "good guys."

That point turns on whether you believe that the South seceeded solely, or even primarily, to preserve slavery.

I don't believe that history will support that interpretation.

I believe that the South had a right to seceed over unfair tariffs and other discriminatory laws, and that they were in the right in resisting Lincoln's invasion to prevent them from seceeding.

[dsc]

"On the contrary yet again, Lee's father-in-law died in the summer of 1857. Lee manumitted the slaves on the last day of December 1862."

Did he have to do that? His father-in-law's will said that he wanted them freed after five years, but was that legally binding?

[dsc]

"Good people tried to be fair and kind to their "people" but as Stowe illustrated it was not possible to make right something so wrong."

That's true, you can't make it right; however, when people are being unfairly demonized, you can argue against that.

[dsc]

"He did express a hope that eventually slavery might be abolished, he was opposed to doing anything about abolition until in the fullness of time God chose to abolish the bondage that He had established."

In other places he expressed the opinion that the South should have abolished slavery before or soon after seceeding.

[yarddog]

One of Lee's slaves (William Mac Lee) said this about him.

"I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee".