So, without qualification liberal is always bad and conservative is always good? With his shady past, I am not surprised that you didn't provide a link or at least an introductory note to attenuate the reality of his book being taken out of print for racism.
You probably hoped no one would check. You were wrong and now you act indignant.
Douglas Wilson co-wrote a booklet on Southern slavery and argued for the conservative point of view that not all slave owners were wild-eyed satanists; that slavery served an economic purpose; and that Reconstruction devastated the South economically and spiritually
So what if slavery served and economic purpose? Does that make it morally right? Ends do not justify the means. The fact is that the Protestant west justified slavery because it's in the Bible, and the Bible is not really adamantly opposed to it on moral or practical grounds. Mixed with the Reformed mindset, it justified slavery like everything else: God wanted it.
If you can't see the error in this, then may God grant you the eyes and the ears to see and hear the message loud and clear one day.
Here are some quotes from this book:
"There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world." (page 24)
Slave life was to them a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care." (page 25)
"But many Southern blacks supported the South because of long established bonds of affection and trust that had been forged over generations with their white masters and friends." (page 27)
"Nearly every slave in the South enjoyed a higher standard of living than the poor whites of the South -- and had a much easier existence." (page 30)
You are amazing.
Compared to other plantation owners in the area, when it came to slavery, “The Jesuits were no better or worse,” according to Cloke. Many of the slaves had been gifts from wealthy Catholic families to sustain the Church. The abolition of slavery was not an issue in the area until the early nineteenth century, when Georgetown’s Jesuits became deeply divided over the issue of slavery.“But they were not conflicted in the way you would want,” Cloke said. “They were conflicted over what to do about the threat of abolitionists.”
...Abolitionists presented an economic rather than moral problem for these Jesuits. With a growing abolitionist presence in Maryland, some of them feared a devaluation of their property, their slaves. Maryland was a state in which slavery had a tenuous hold, the economy was no longer driven by slave labor. According to reports, the general debt of the mission was close to $32,000 by the 1830s, a large sum for the time.
“It was not a market for growing crops, but for growing slaves,” said Cloke. The real money was to be made not from the work a slave could do in Maryland, but from the hugely profitable business of selling the slaves downriver....
...Brother Mobberly, who served as an overseer on one of the estates, kept an extensive diary giving a bird’s eye view of the tension the Jesuits felt surrounding the issue of slavery. His diary explores the tension between Catholics, an already persecuted group, and the Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers and Methodists who were outspokenly opposed to slavery. Mobberly, like other Jesuits, came to feel threatened and saw the issue as a Catholic-Protestant conflict. Involving everything from the Bible to Thomas Jefferson, Mobberly’s diary defended slavery. He explained that Abraham owned slaves, and wrote, “Abraham had God for his particular friend; and we do not read that God ever reproached him for keeping men in servitude. Therefore, it was lawful for him to possess them.”