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)

[mac_truck]

Should students (at the appropriate level) be prevented from reading exerpts from "Mein Kampf" to help them understand the origins of nazism?

I would argue not.

[jude24]

It gets worse.

The "pastor" who wrote the bilge supporting slavery is Doug Wilson, one of the Federal Visionary school -- he's Reformed.

[cyborg]

Mein Kampf was written by Hitler himself, not some skinhead meth coke head looking to make an excuse why the Jooz are evil. There are more than enough writings of people who owned slaves to know why slavery existed in the States.

[cyborg]

It's pretty sad he'd write such a thing. I've read some of his other books, esp. about marriage.

[saquin]

"Mein Kampf" is a historical document that, read in the right context, gives insight into Hitler's warped thinking.

On the other hand, I don't think the pamphlet of a holocaust denier should be added to the WWII curriculum to provide "balance".

[Mark in the Old South]

Please do not jump on me, I am not defending slavery. I will say it is a hateful practice right off the bat, but it was not the bull whips and plantation jails of the imagination, even though those things existed and were used. One of the best works of fiction that I have ever read that I think got it right is "Uncle Tom's Cabin" Everyone has formed an opinion about this book but few have read it. I suggest looking it over. Considering I am a pro-South Freeper I hope that endorsement will carry some weight considering the reputation that book has received for starting that late unpleasantness.

One fact to consider is this. Large areas of the South had absentee owners and high slave population. As an example South Carolina's low country, some counties had 3000 slaves to every white freeman. Diaries and letters from the era record the concern overseers had with upsetting the slave population. This concern was real since slaves were allowed to carry rifles. They had to because they needed them to hunt for meat and in areas where Indian attacks were still to be expected. I tell you I found this shocking when I read it.

Scholars reviewing the records believe the slave system in that area was largely self regulating. The rice crop took 11-12 months to bring to harvest. For most of that time tending to the crop took very little daily labor. Large numbers of slaves were needed only at harvest time when long back breaking days were required. For the next 10 months the workday started at sunup and was over shortly after noon. Most of the day to day management was done by one of the older and trusted slaves. As a result of the short workday slave owners provided very, very little in the way of provisions (shockingly little including clothing). The slaves were free to raise their own crops and livestock. The Charleston markets were dominated by a slave economy. White fishermen complained but could do little to undercut the slave driven markets. By the way slaves kept their profits, the little that it was.

Here in Virginia it was very different. The workday was much longer and much harder work. On the other hand provisions were much better. The slaves were better trained in such trades as blacksmithing, carpentry, joinery, etc. Free blacks were more common than in the low country but more likely to be very very poor. Free black in SC were often quite well off but very rare.

For the record there are 3 books I recommend that deal in part with slavery and all support what I state above.

Slave Counterpoint - deals with the development of slavery from the beginning up to the American Revolution. The areas of Virginia and South Carolina are highlighted as the centers of this peculiar institution. A very heavy read but well documented. I can not remember the authors name.

Plantation Mistress - the subject is white women from 1830-1850 and was meant to complement a book on the role of New England women. The role of slavery is a major part of the book and does not contradict Slave Counterpoint other than the differences in periods discussed. I can not remember the authors name, but it was a woman. This is the lightest reading of the 3 I mention here.

Black Confederates and Afro-Americans in Civil War Virginia. By Jordan. A (black) professor at the University of Virginia who caught holy H-E-double toothpick for writing this book. It deals with life for all aspects of black life during the four years of the Civil War. He hits it all, slaves on the plantation, slaves in the cities, free blacks, slave owning blacks, slaves who ran away to fight for the North, slaves who ran away to get away, everything. What he really wanted to explore and he tried to explain is why on earth would slave fight for the South. Many even received a pension for their services from the various states after the war, even slaves who stayed to fight when their coward of a master deserted. The was a fascinating book with many stories that are hard to reason or explain. It really shows the complexity that was slavery. It is a bit of a heavy read for most but not as heavy as Slave counterpoint.

[saquin]

The "Stockholm Syndrome" is also a well-known psychological phenomenom of some hostages beginning to identify with their captors after long periods of captivity and dependence on them. That doesn't make the hostage-taking any less of a crime or imply that some hostages were really quite content being hostages.

[Free Vulcan]

OK, I'll bite. I've never heard about the story about a black lady from NC owning a large number of slaves. As they say there, do tell!

[cyborg]

mark and bump for a well informed post

[mikegi]

Some of my ancestors owned slaves in the South. I don't think they were monsters or evil people.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

We have contemporary accounts from some former slaves that stated their lives were not a living hell, unlike the 'Northern' version of slavery. But it cannot change the fact that slavery was evil, no matter how benign the master may have been. The human spirit is not suited to bondage, and so a war had to be fought to free those in chains, real or figurative.

[saquin]

Some of my ancestors owned slaves in the South. I don't think they were monsters or evil people.

Of course you don't.

And perhaps they weren't. But the system was. And to deny that a system that enslaved human beings was not monstrous or evil is, in my mind, as reprehensible as those who deny the holocaust.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "The booklet apparently is used as a counterbalance to the works of Harriet Beecher Stowe and others that are also part of the curiculum."

I've read Stowe, I really don't think it is possible to counterbalance her work. Most of the point of Uncle Tom's Cabin was to show how even good and well meaning slave owners could not make the institution okay. In fact there is only one truly bad actor (Simon Legree) two of Uncle Tom's owners were almost saintly and most of the others somewhere in-between (selfish would be the best word to describe them) but far from evil.

I still can not figure how Uncle Tome became a pejorative term considering Uncle Tom was the only slave that stood up to the evil Simon Legree, and paid for it with his life. You really have to read the book. I fear most only think they know what it is about. It is really a morality tale. Very powerful, very moving.

[ladylib]

Here is a statement from the school:

http://www.carychristianschool.org/NewsAndEvents/default.cfm

[jude24]

Some of my ancestors owned slaves in the South. I don't think they were monsters or evil people.

Probably not. Not all Nazi party members were monsters or evil people either. But such is the ability of even decent people to do unspeakably evil things, especially when the culture is blind to it.

[Mark in the Old South]

I have never heard of this woman. Could you tell us more? As to the slave owning blacks most were slave owners of their own family members. A free black who bought his wife or son etc. The reason they remained slaves even though it was largely in name only (let us not get off topic about the slavery of women in the 18th & 19th century please) was due to the laws governing newly free slaves. They had to leave the state unless they got government exemption (which was common enough here in Virginia) There were large slave owners who were black but they were not very common. The black owners of Melrose Plantation in LA were richer and had more slaves than their white neighbors but that was not very common as I said.

[cyborg]

very interesting

[yarddog]

When I was an undergrad, one of our history professors had obtained the journal of a plantation owner who lived near Eufala, Alabama. His name was Dent.

He kept a detailed account of every thing which happened on his farm. Each student was given maybe 30 xeroxed pages which we were to study then discuss in class. It was more than fascinating. My pages included a couple of shopping lists which showed purchases he had made in Eufala.

First of all, he did whip his slaves, at least some of them. He was very strict. Had rules which must be obeyed. For instance he would give them each a portion of whiskey every day, but it must be consumed that day and not saved.

In another way he seemed quite benevolent. Among the items he purchased was candy and toys for the slave children. Also clothing. I remember one thing he listed was "Osnabrucks" which I still don't know exactly what it was or why a slave needed them.

He also was religious and seemed to be of very high moral character. He also did not like Yankees and this was before the war.

Some of his descendents became prominent. Including a U.S. Senator, representatives and an ambassador.

[cyborg]

I don't blame people in the South for being defensive about their history. The libs want a one sided discussion and don't think anyone else has anything to contribute to the discussion.

[mac_truck]

I've read Stowe, I really don't think it is possible to counterbalance her work.

I agree that Uncle Tom's Cabin has been and continues to be greatly misinterpreted by all sides of the slavery issue. Stowe wrote the book after traveling in the south and being greatly moved by what she saw of that peculiar institution. The villian of the story, Simon Legree, was a yankee.

Yet when Uncle Tom's Cabin was published in 1851 it enraged southern society and was quickly banned in the south. Her book also galvinized support in the north for ending (or at least not extending) slavery in the United States.