I'm not so sure of that.
But, the historical record shows Southerners predominately followed the instructions provided by the Apostle Paul for the institution.
Cold comfort if you're the one deprived of liberty.
And don't you think there's some self-selection going on in the 1930s study? The poorly-treated slaves would by definition have been of poorer health and have been dead by the 1930s. Only those with the best treatment would have survived so long.
Conducting a survey about the quality of slave life seventy years after Emancipation is a very self-serving activity.
All that said, we are better off having moved beyond it.. although Lincoln deserves virtually none of the credit for that.
LOL, right. Lincoln was the first person to send armies to liberate the slaves, and succeeded. NOTHING to do with it? Right.
I'm sorry, your contentention that "Lincoln sent armies to free the slaves" has NO basis in history.
Give me just ONE example of where he did that. It does NOT exist.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed NO ONE. Neither did it order "the armies to free the slaves". It, in effect, told people in another country, where Lincoln had no authority, what to do. He could just as well tolk the French to stop drinking wine, while distributing it to his own troops. This is actually a fairly accurate statement, since Union troops raped, murdered, and took blacks as their own slaves which they came to "emancipate".
Your version of 'history' has no basis in fact, whatsoever.
While you sit on your throne of moral superiority, please explain to the rest of us why Grant and Sherman owned slaves the entire war; indeed, why the US government ITSELF OWNED SLAVES THE ENTIRE WAR, which it used for construction projects in downtown Washington, DC???