[mac_truck]

"As a classical Christian school, we think it's important for our students to be able to think and not be slanted to a particular position," Stephenson said. "We want them to think for themselves."

It's hard to argue with that sentiment, and as a private institution the school is not beholden to the government for resources.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

...another hit piece to hassle anything that competes with the NEA-run gummit skewls and their huge sucking sound.

[rdb3]

Defending slavery. 2004.

Beam me up.

[cyborg]

What a crock. Nothing defensible about slavery.

[skutter]

Schools have been hiding the truth about slavery ever since the War Between the States ended. Northerners ran nearly all of the slave trading ships, while a black lady in South Carolina owned the most slaves in the country. Also, approximately 25% of free blacks in the south owned slaves, which is a higher percentage than that of whites.

[Alouette]

I don't see a problem with teaching both sides of an important historical dispute. That's how you learn critical thinking skills.

Of course I've received a lot of hate mail for including (with disclaimers) the 1861 text The Bible View of Slavery on my website, even though the article is linked to two contemporary, anti-slavery essays.

[mhking]

a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren't treated as badly as people think.

This is a joke, right (and not a very good one at that)?

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[saquin]

Do they also have a booklet to explain "the other side" of the holocaust and how Auschwitz was actually more like a holiday camp?

[ladylib]

It was unfortunate that they used this material. At least they are trying to get their students to see all sides of an issue.

[contemplator]

Revisionist historians are also trying to claim the holocaust never happened.

Just becuase you can emphasize or de-emphasize aspects of a situation to suit your purposes and call it showing both sides of the equation doesn't mean you have a moral responsibility to do so.

Using that warped logic we should be extolling the positives of how drugs make you feel good and allow you to escape to a 'happy place' or saying that giving in to peer pressure will make you feel like part of 'the cool club' and that they really arent so bad as a counter-point to the 'Just say no' campaign.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[SedVictaCatoni]

Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures

Happy indeed is he who sees the cotton harvest and the lash as simple pleasures.

[Michael.SF.]

In discussions such as this it is difficult to point out the 'other side' w/o sounding like you are defending the indefensiable. But slavery was a fact at the time. There are a couple of things that can be pointed out:

A stong high quality slave was an expensive asset from the perspective of the slave owner. As such a smart business man used those assets wisely in order to maximize his return in his investment. I would suspect that the treatment of slaves was in many cases proportional to their cost to the owner and this owners business acumen.

When a slave owner had particularly dangerous tasks that needed to be done, rather then risk a costly asset, he would sub contract this task out to others, who were less valuable then his own slaves. Much of this type of work fell to new immigrants, many of which were Irish, at this time.

[LibertarianInExile]

I can't remember ever reading an article about a similar incident in an Islamic school. Of course, that's unlikely to happen, either. Most Islamic schools wouldn't present the PC side of things, I'm sure.

I'm glad this article is written so fairly, without any hint of bias, and a completely fair treatment. And of course, it's convenient that the principal probably has loads of experience with the media cherrypicking-a-damning-sound-bite approach. /sarcasm

[marron]

Slavery was a Democrat institution, as was Jim Crow repression for the century following it.

Republicans should never let themselves be put in the position of defending the indefensible. Let Democrats defend Democrat history. We're Republicans. We are the party founded to end slavery, we ended it, and we should never apologize for it.

American conservatism isn't the traditionalist conservatism of the rest of the world, it is the simple John Lockean, Jeffersonian belief in limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility. That is the tradition we seek to "conserve". We should never be put in the position of defending a culture that only imperfectly manifests our ideals, but understand that we are in a fight to the end to transform that culture. To defend it when it merits defending, and to transform it as it falls short.

You can tell me all day long that there were noble men who lived in the South and fought for its cause, and I will tell you that this only proves one of history's most tragic truths. The greatest evils are not committed by evil men, as we all know who they are and can defend ourselves against them. The greatest evils are committed by good men who don't see the damage they do. The greatest evils are committed by people who put clan loyalty ahead of moral right. The noble southerners who died in that war, died themselves for a cause that was not worthy of their sacrifice, and they died to defend men who were themselves not worthy.

It is true that we are talking about another time, when people did not understand things in the way they do now, and you would be right. But the fact remains that some men did understand, some men did find the courage to stand up against evil, many of these men paid the price for it, and it is these men whose lives and deaths we should celebrate.

Let Democrats defend Democrat history.

[HitmanLV]

Whoever spent more than 2 seconds contemplating such a booklet (arguing the biblical case for slavery and depicting a 'happy' slave) is one whacked out bird. There have to be better things to do out there.

Give 'em heck, I say - whackjobs like this don't belong anywhere near 'our side.'

[reg45]

But remember, they (the slaves) had free health-care.

[Shanda]

The discussion of slavery strikes me as nearly always nothing more than a tool for attacking, hating and slandering the American South.

Those who do so seem to have no problem at all with slavery in Greece or Rome or anywhere else. If they do they sure don't mention it.