He did not.
He said he "wondered" if they weren't better off. That's a valid qualification. All things considered, there was a question in his mind.
There is that same question in my mind. Is living in the projects, dealing with drugs and crime daily and waiting in line at the welfare really an improvement?
Look, we're talking generalities here -- seeking to answer what was best for the most people. Some slaves were treated well, others weren't. Some blacks pull themselves up out of the poverty cycle today, most don't. And you don't think there was even cause to wonder?
Do you really believe the way blacks have been suborned and maintained by the government over the past fifty years has been a good thing? When does the concept of "abuse" enter your mind?
I agree Bundy probably shouldn't have risen to the bait the Times interviewer chummed on the water. But most folks don't have a PR counselor sitting at their side during a media interview. Perhaps, you'd be slick enough to avoid the trap, I don't know.
Still, Bundy gave an honest answer...and he properly qualified his statement. The New York Times chose to edit out the qualification -- for nefarious reasons of their own.
And you choose to ignore it...
I do not. I agree that blacks are on a government slave plantation.
My disagreement is when he said slaves had a good family life, despite the reality that family members could be sold.