New book Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War

[Danielart]

Lets do the next two sections hopefully it can ignite some more Historical based discussions.

Medical Care

According to Fogel and Engerman, plantation owners spent more money on medical care for slaves than freemen did on their children. They write, "That adequate maintenance of the health of their slaves was a central objective of most planters is repeatedly emphasized in instructions to overseers and in other records and concordance of planters." In Jesse James; Last Rebel of the Civil War, author T.J. Stiles, looking at slavery in Missouri, wrote that "most slaves received about as much medical care as their owners."

Many plantations would have a mini-hospital, a full-time nurse, and a doctor who would travel between plantations. Former slave Rachel Adams of Georgia said, "White folks jus had to be good to sick slaves, cause slaves was property. For Old Merster to lose a slave was losin money." Armstead Barrett of Texas said, "Old massa have doctor for us when us sick. We's too val'ble," and former Mississippi slave Henry Cheatam said, "De owners always tuk care of us, and when us got sick dey would git a doctor." Self-proclaimed "Yankee" Joseph Ingraham observed plantations in Louisiana and Mississippi. He said, "On large plantations, hospitals are erected for the reception of the sick, and the best medical attendance is provided for them….on some estates, a physician permanently resides... the health of the slaves, so far as medical skill is concerned, is well provided for."

Frederick Douglass’s Narrative: Myth of the Happy Slave

In 1845, the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, and Written by Himself was published. In it, Douglass criticizes directly—often with withering irony—those who defend slavery and those who prefer a romanticized version of it.

edsitement.neh.gov

In 1845 the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, and Written by Himself was published. In it, Douglass criticizes directly—often with withering irony—those who defend slavery and those who prefer a romanticized version of it. Pitilessly, he offers the reader a first-hand account of the pain, humiliation, and brutality of the South's "peculiar institution.”
One myth that Southern slave owners and proponents perpetuated was that of the slave happily singing from dawn to dusk as he or she worked in the fields, prepared meals in the kitchen, or maintained the upkeep of the plantation. In his Narrative—particularly chapters 1 and 2— Douglass quickly distinguishes the myth from the reality. He uses incidents of cruelty that he witnessed along with songs of the slaves themselves—spirituals—to emphasize this distinction.

 

[Danielart]

The fact that recorded history causes such a response proves my book true, we are given a false history of the South and the civil war!

Thank you.

The historical record is damning for the Rebels:

Myth: “Robert E. Lee didn’t own slaves.”

The claim that Robert E. Lee did not own slaves is often paired with the claim that Ulysses S. Grant did own slaves during the Civil War. Both claims serve to distance the Confederacy from its core justification and suggest United States hypocrisy on the matter of race. Both claims are false.

Robert E. Lee personally owned slaves that he inherited upon the death of his mother, Ann Lee, in 1829. (His son, Robert E. Lee Jr., gave the number as three or four families.) Following the death of his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, in 1857, Lee assumed command of 189 enslaved people, working the estates of Arlington, White House, and Romancoke. Custis’ will stipulated that the enslaved people that the Lee family inherited be freed within five years.

Lee, as executor of Custis’ will and supervisor of Custis’ estates, drove his new-found labor force hard to lift those estates from debt. Concerned that the endeavor might take longer than the five years stipulated, Lee petitioned state courts to extend his control of enslaved people.

The Custis bondspeople, aware of their former owner’s intent, resisted Lee’s efforts to enforce stricter work discipline. Resentment resulted in escape attempts. In 1859 Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and their cousin, George Parks, escaped to Maryland where they were captured and returned to Arlington.

 

[power1]

We know two million people died during the Middle Passage, so your contention that the slaves should grateful is beyond idiotic.

No I don't know two million people died. Is that your own estimation or something someone made up? Do you also have the number of people who were cooked for supper or killed with sharp sticks while their family was gathering them up to be sold?

 

[power1]

Ok I think I understand this Neo Lost Cause argument...African Slave trade ...baaad.....Confederate Slave owning...A OK....

Gotcha!

I have to even the playing field. You think it is A OK for the africans to sell their friends and family into slavery but it is bad for anyone to buy them.

 

[Danielart]

I am familiar with Douglass and often quote him, so there is no need to educate me about his experiences. However, I kindly request that you read my posts more attentively. Your responses fail to grasp my point. I acknowledge that slaves like Douglass endured terrible conditions, which I highlighted multiple times in my book and posts. My concern is that Douglass represents the exception, not the norm. By relying solely on exceptional experiences like Douglass, you disregard most slave experiences.

It is not reasonable to cite Douglass as the embodiment of all slaves. This approach perpetuates a false notion of slavery. Please explain the logic behind this selective choice and the justification for such reasoning. I believe you are an intelligent person, and I urge you to consider the flaws in this approach.

For example, suppose a teacher administered a test to a class, and two students failed while eight passed. In that case, we would not generalize that everyone failed the test.

Look Issac,

It's really difficult to take your seriously man...it really is.

Douglas is not the ONLY singular voice from a freed Slave.
American Archives have 2500 interviews of Freed Slaves and dozens of audio interviews recorded in the early 30's.

The vast majority of Freed Slaves did not have the level of education to write as Douglas did, but they offered their witness nonetheless.
You're dealing in a subject which has had years of research by highly acclaimed academics from the South and North who were ( and are) invested in documenting our history.

I am pleased to share these resources with you with your lack of knowledge.

About this Collection​

The recordings of former slaves in Voices Remembering Slavery: Freed People Tell Their Stories took place between 1932 and 1975 in nine states. Twenty-two interviewees discuss how they felt about slavery, slaveholders, coercion of slaves, their families, and freedom. Several individuals sing songs, many of which were learned during the time of their enslavement. It is important to note that all of the interviewees spoke sixty or more years after the end of their enslavement, and it is their full lives that are reflected in these recordings. The individuals documented in this presentation have much to say about living as African Americans from the 1870s to the 1930s, and beyond.
All known recordings of former slaves in the American Folklife Center are included in this presentation. Some are being made publicly available for the first time. Unfortunately, not all the recordings are clearly audible. Although the original tapes and discs are generally in good physical condition, background noise and poorly positioned microphones make it extremely difficult to follow many of the interviews. It is important to note, that an additional 2300 non-audio interviews with ex-slaves are available online: Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938. The contextual and interpretive material accompanying those interviews are often equally useful for understanding the recordings in this presentation.

 

[Danielart]

I have to even the playing field. You think it is A OK for the africans to sell their friends and family into slavery but it is bad for anyone to buy them.

No one is making that assertion except you. There is no "leveling" it is objectively evil and that is the only position to take.
Your logic is classic "whataboutism" or "whataboutery". That is a logical fallacy which aims at deflection rather than facing reality directly. It is a type of Red Herring logical fallacy.

 

[power1]

No one is making that assertion except you. There is no "leveling" it is objectively evil and that is the only position to take.
Your logic is classic "whataboutism" or "whataboutery". That is a logical fallacy which aims at deflection rather than facing reality directly. It is a type of Red Herring logical fallacy.

Not trying to deflect anything. Just trying to understand why one group of people are blamed for everything and the other group of people are not even mentioned. My opinion is the group that gathered the slaves and sold them should be held responsible as much or more than the people who bought them. When it comes to the drug trade the dealer is the one who is punished more than the drug users. When it comes to weapons the people who sell weapons to convicts are held more responsible than the convicts. When it comes to theft it is the thieves who steal then sell the items that is more responsible than someone who buys the items. When it comes to slavery the people who capture and sell slaves are not held responsible at all. No one talks about them. If it wasn't for them the people would not be slaves. Even the black people who owned slaves are not being held responsible. The white man who owned slaves is the only people who are being held responsible. Sounds like a bunch of racists trying to get rich complaining about slavery but not really giving a damn about the slaves.

 

[chowderman]

regrets to say, you are extracting tidbits, demanding it be real, and ignoring real history.

the "north" eschewed black soldiers - somewhere in some excruciatingly minute corner of the world, black may have been welcomed into the ranks - exceedingly rare thing.

the "north" conscripting free blacks into 'forced labor' - to do exactly what? the battle lines were 'fluid' (in modern terms) and there were very very few static sieges where any one of any color would be conscripted into forced labor to build fortifications.

"slave said things were better in the old days"
there is truth to this - but not in the context you insist is historical fact.
plantation Masters did not feed the slaves. the slaves fed the plantation masters.
the slaves worked the land, grew the crops, raised the animals.
it was not difficult - in the absence of a sadistic black over-seer, to horde a bit for themselves, excepting meat animals which was harder to hide - and I suppose you deny the leftovers from the origins of "eating high on the hog" to support your inane theories....

when slaves were 'emancipated' - basically they were told: "You're free to go." Go fxxking where?
some free black did 'return to the south' - to look for their families . . . not to go back and pick cotton.
some plantation owners threw slaves off the property.
some plantation owners offered to employ - for pay/benefits - ex-slaves during the Go Where, Do What period.

did thing get worse for black ex-slaves after the Civil War? Yes, you dummy. no one was taking care of them anymore - they had to fend for themselves, and they had extremely extremely limited resources and abilities to do so. to maintain slavery wasn't so bad because ex-slaves had a hard time of it after the war is totally NUTS!

"slaves kept more of their wages than you do."
insanity, nothing but insanity. slaves were not "paid" any wages.

"slaves were well fed and had excellent medical care."
again a total distortion of their real world.
they were property. forcing them into starvation was hugely detrimental to picking cotton.
no slave owner starved slaves into submission, just as no Jaguar owner declines to change their engine oil.

you are absolutely on the wrong side of real, not J.C Calhoun, history.

 

[Tiburon]

No I don't know two million people died. Is that your own estimation or something someone made up? Do you also have the number of people who were cooked for supper or killed with sharp sticks while their family was gathering them up to be sold?

Yes, we do. It’s been throughly established by historians.

Digital History

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu

I get that you see nothing wrong with slavery, but claiming anyone should be grateful for it is beyond moronic.

 

[Tiburon]

I have to even the playing field. You think it is A OK for the africans to sell their friends and family into slavery but it is bad for anyone to buy them.

Yes, buying slaves is bad. You being too stupid to grasp that says a lot about you.

 

[chowderman]

one out of two hundred thousand ( + or - ) is not a meaningful statistic.

you stand on the ultra-warped side of Dixie history. the John C Calhoun organization is as far off the mark as the KKK, just opposite sides.

 

[power1]

Yes, we do. It’s been throughly established by historians.

Digital History

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu

I get that you see nothing wrong with slavery, but claiming anyone should be grateful for it is beyond moronic.

In my family tree I have both slaves and slave owners. Most races of people have, at one time, been slaves. They usually worked their way out of slavery. For some reason blacks did not do that. They depended on the white man to get them out of slavery. I have yet to see one that appreciated it.
As for as the number of slaves that died I will have to question it. Who counted the dead ones? We know the slaves didn't know how to count.

 

[chowderman]

And when you categorize historical sources from the period as you do, I say the South is victorious!

total nut job. no other explanation.

 

[power1]

Yes, buying slaves is bad. You being too stupid to grasp that says a lot about you.

Yes, we do. It’s been throughly established by historians.

Digital History

www.digitalhistory.uh.edu

I get that you see nothing wrong with slavery, but claiming anyone should be grateful for it is beyond moronic.

I have slaves in my family tree so I do have some idea about what slavery was like. I didn't say anything about not seeing anything wrong slavery. Please learn how to read. Even some slaves knew how to read. What is your problem? The slaves in my family tree has the good sense to work their way out of slavery. They didn't just cry about it and they didn't depend on others to do the work for them.

 

[Doc]

Yes, buying slaves is bad. You being too stupid to grasp that says a lot about you.

175 posts discussing this issue. I applaud you all for remaining civil, for the most part, to each other.
Discuss the issue.

NO NAME CALLING.

Mr tiburon we have a ban hammer and know how to use it. Be civil to all members, even those you disagree with.
thanks.

 

[Tiburon]

I have slaves in my family tree so I do have some idea about what slavery was like. I didn't say anything about not seeing anything wrong slavery. Please learn how to read. Even some slaves knew how to read. What is your problem? The slaves in my family tree has the good sense to work their way out of slavery. They didn't just cry about it and they didn't depend on others to do the work for them.

Slaves“worked their way out of slavery” by escaping from slavery. You repeatedly trying to claim that they should be “grateful” for being enslaved says it all.

 

[Tiburon]

In my family tree I have both slaves and slave owners. Most races of people have, at one time, been slaves. They usually worked their way out of slavery. For some reason blacks did not do that. They depended on the white man to get them out of slavery. I have yet to see one that appreciated it.
As for as the number of slaves that died I will have to question it. Who counted the dead ones? We know the slaves didn't know how to count.

Hundreds of thousands of Southerners died fighting to protect slavery, yes.

Uh....yes, they did. Counting is a pretty damn basic fundamental of any civilization.

 

[Tiburon]

And when you categorize historical sources from the period as you do, I say the South is victorious!

The South was only “victorious” until Jim Crow fell and the Lost Cause collapsed.

 

[power1]

Slaves“worked their way out of slavery” by escaping from slavery. You repeatedly trying to claim that they should be “grateful” for being enslaved says it all.

Again your reading ability shows you either cannot understand or cannot read. Probably a little of both. Are you still in grade school?

 

[power1]

Hundreds of thousands of Southerners died fighting to protect slavery, yes.

Uh....yes, they did. Counting is a pretty damn basic fundamental of any civilization.

Like many other things you keep missing the point. White people fought against the South. It wasn't the blacks who won their release from slavery. You keep forgetting that all slaves were not black. Blacks were not known for and not bred for intelligence. If not for the white people blacks would still be slaves.

 

[Tiburon]

Like many other things you keep missing the point. White people fought against the South. It wasn't the blacks who won their release from slavery. You keep forgetting that all slaves were not black. Blacks were not known for and not bred for intelligence. If not for the white people blacks would still be slaves.

Tens of thousands of former slaves fought in the USCTs, so that is clearly blatantly false.

Any other Stormfront talking points you’d like to regurgitate?

 

[Tiburon]

Again your reading ability shows you either cannot understand or cannot read. Probably a little of both. Are you still in grade school?

Coming from someone like you that means little. Anyone who thinks slaves couldn’t count clearly has no idea what they are talking about.

 

[power1]

Tens of thousands of former slaves fought in the USCTs, so that is clearly blatantly false.

Any other Stormfront talking points you’d like to regurgitate?

Some black soldiers were allowed to join the army but it was a disaster. After their first time in combat they failed miserably. After that they were put to work as cooks, guards, and other jobs that did not include fighting. That is where they spent most of their military time. I don't know what Stormfront is. Probably someplace you got much of your information from. Maybe you should do a little more research elsewhere. You are failing in your feeble attempt at trying to make heroes out of some field hands.
Yes, some slaves could count. They could count to three. That was me, you, and everyone else. They couldn't go past three because they couldn't even say the word four.

 

[Tiburon]

Some black soldiers were allowed to join the army but it was a disaster. After their first time in combat they failed miserably. After that they were put to work as cooks, guards, and other jobs that did not include fighting. That is where they spent most of their military time. I don't know what Stormfront is. Probably someplace you got much of your information from. Maybe you should do a little more research elsewhere. You are failing in your feeble attempt at trying to make heroes out of some field hands.
Yes, some slaves could count. They could count to three. That was me, you, and everyone else. They couldn't go past three because they couldn't even say the word four.

Uh…..no it wasn’t. The USCTs performed extremely well in combat, often being willing to take horrific casualties in the course of securing their objectives.

U.S. Army General Ulysses S. Grant praised the competent performance and bearing of the USCT, saying at Vicksburg that:

Negro troops are easier to preserve discipline among than our white troops ... All that have been tried have fought bravely.
— Ulysses S. Grant, at Vicksburg (July 24, 1863).[18]

United States Colored Troops - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

They saw action on every major front of the war, and claiming that using them was a “disaster” is just flat out false.

Sure you don’t. That’s why you keep tossing out the lie about slaves not being able to count 🙄

 

[power1]

Uh…..no it wasn’t. The USCTs performed extremely well in combat, often being willing to take horrific casualties in the course of securing their objectives.

U.S. Army General Ulysses S. Grant praised the competent performance and bearing of the USCT, saying at Vicksburg that:

United States Colored Troops - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

They saw action on every major front of the war, and claiming that using them was a “disaster” is just flat out false.

Sure you don’t. That’s why you keep tossing out the lie about slaves not being able to count 🙄

They were mostly cooks and support for the North. Over three times as many died from disease than died during combat. The first time they were allowed to fight they lost over half of their troops and their commander in the first charge. The blacks who did fight were commanded by a white officer. The blacks were called contraband. Some blacks fought for the Confederacy. The South didn't recognize them as fighting men but some formed their own army and fought.
Even after the war the majority of blacks in the north were in bonded servitude. The only free blacks in the north were those blacks who were children of whites.

 

[Tiburon]

They were mostly cooks and support for the North. Over three times as many died from disease than died during combat. The first time they were allowed to fight they lost over half of their troops and their commander in the first charge. The blacks who did fight were commanded by a white officer. The blacks were called contraband. Some blacks fought for the Confederacy. The South didn't recognize them as fighting men but some formed their own army and fought.
Even after the war the majority of blacks in the north were in bonded servitude. The only free blacks in the north were those blacks who were children of whites.

Ulysses S Grant himself praised the USCTs for their courage and skill in battle.

Wrong yet again. This was the first USCT engagement, where they repulsed a numerically superior enemy force, inflicting significant casualties on the pro Confederate forces.

Skirmish at Island Mound - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, they were called “contraband” to give the US forces an excuse to free them from their “masters”.

Time and again the USCTs proved their skill and valor in combat....and sent your Confederate heroes running for their lives 😂

 

[power1]

Ulysses S Grant himself praised the USCTs for their courage and skill in battle.

Wrong yet again. This was the first USCT engagement, where they repulsed a numerically superior enemy force, inflicting significant casualties on the pro Confederate forces.

Skirmish at Island Mound - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, they were called “contraband” to give the US forces an excuse to free them from their “masters”.

Time and again the USCTs proved their skill and valor in combat....and sent your Confederate heroes running for their lives 😂

Did I mention anything about USCT? I said the first time a black company was used in combat.
They were called contraband because the northern troops didn't even consider them human. They were objects.

 

[Tiburon]

Did I mention anything about USCT? I said the first time a black company was used in combat.
They were called contraband because the northern troops didn't even consider them human. They were objects.

They were considered contraband because that was a convenient excuse to free them prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. Contrary to your claims, not only could former slaves count, but they fought....extremely welll

USCTs are ”black companies”.

 

[Tiburon]

Says the one who calls historical data lost cause myths and accept the standard dogma of the victors!

Says the guy trying to excuse and defend literal slavery. You clearly don’t know the first thing about “historical data”.

 

[power1]

Americans actually saved many slaves from death. African slave holders wanted women and children. They would kill most male slaves. The Americans would buy the male slaves therefore saving them from death. Americans did not enslave anyone. They bought people who were already slaves. During the time that Americans were buying slaves about half of the American settlers were white indentured slaves who were treated much worse than slaves.
In 1830 there were 3775 black people who owned 12,740 black slaves.