A dear friend of mine has posted this image of a letter from his ancestor about the family slaves. He posted this comment with the letter.
I must admit I was a bit worried about what I have and will share. I don’t want to give ammo to the Yankee Bloggers, but since what I have is the truth I will let the chips fall where they may.
Well, I say let the chips fly…or… I am curious to what my readers think of the letter. How do you interpret what is written? The owner of the letter provides no interpretation or futher information than what you see here. However I will add that his family fought for the south in the Richmond Howitzers throughout the war.
Well, there it is…have at it!
That’s an interesting document, though it doesn’t look like a letter – more like notes one member of the family recorded to pass down to another. I suspect it was written years after, and maybe many years after, the events described. It’s always important to know when a document was written, by whom and for whom, when evaluating it as historical evidence.
The document gives the name of ten slaves (Clary, Jemimah, Lucy, Ellen, Maria, Lewis, Braxton, Telemachus, Jesse and Albert), apparently five male and five female. The document is headed, “in the year 1850,” although that may be an estimate. The U.S. Census of 1850 shows Theophilus Tatum of Henrico County, Virginia as holding five slaves — three male, ages given as 30, 6 and 3, and two female, ages given as 35 and 15. These may, or may not, represent a family unit.
By the 1860 U.S. Census, Theophilus Tatum’s slave holdings has increased to eight, and included five male slaves, ranging in age from 13 to 39, and three female slaves, ages given as 6 to 45. As you know, slaves’ names were not recorded in the census, and ages should probably be taken as approximate, but five of the slaves listed in 1860 correspond with the ages of the five from 1850, and may represent the same individuals.
Much of the document is devoted to a long passage about the loyalty and trustworthiness of Theophilus Tatum’s slaves. There are some very common themes here, but they’re hard to assess, because they’re entirely from (I presume) a member of the Theophilus Tatum’s family. It presents a narrative that, perhaps inevitably, reflects well on Theophilus Tatum as a sort of a benevolent paterfamilias to his bondsmen.
The reference to the women of the family being safe when left alone with the family slaves is a common theme, too, that while on the surface complimenting the trustworthiness of the Tatum family bondsmen specifically, also underscores the continual fear of the dangers that slaves in general, and particularly male slaves, presented to white women. There’s a contrast being made there, even if it’s not explicitly stated.
As is so often the case, the men and women being discussed here – Clary, Ellen, Lewis, Albert and the rest –have no voice in this document , so we really cannot know to what degree they themselves would agree or disagree with its description of them. They may or may not have seen their situation as being one in which they were “happy and loved” and “much respected.” We simply don’t know what they thought or believed or felt, or anything about their motivations.
This is a great document, and your “dear friend” is fortunate to have it. It does bring something valuable to the historical record, but giving names to the enslaved persons held by Theophilus Tatum. But it is not a conclusion; it’s a beginning, a starting-off point for further research. For example, there’s this item from the Richmond Dispatch, August 16, 1861, listing one of the slaves mentioned as a runaway from a farm where Tatum had him hired out:
This suggests, at a bare minimum, that the lives of these men and women in this period were not so idyllic and pastoral as the manuscript account suggests. Was Telemachus “happy?” Did he feel “much respected?” Those are fair questions, but also ones that wouldn’t be asked if you looked only at the single document presented above.
Documents like these are invaluable, but their value only comes when they’re understood in the context of the time and place, and (when possible) referenced against other sources. It’s one more piece of the puzzle.
“The reference to the women of the family being safe when left alone with the family slaves is a common theme, too, that while on the surface complimenting the trustworthiness of the Tatum family bondsmen specifically, also underscores the continual fear of the dangers that slaves in general, and particularly male slaves, presented to white women. There’s a contrast being made there, even if it’s not explicitly stated.”
Andy overlooked something in the notebook. The ladies of the Tatum family didn’t just find the slaves trustworthy to be left alone with. It says, “…the ladies of the family looked upon them as good protectors.”
Not only not a threat, but protectors….
The 1840 Census lists him with five slaves. Two listed in the 1850 Census (ages 6 and 3) would not have been present in 1840 so there’s an additional two in 1840 not listed elsewhere. That rounds out the ten though it is over the course of 20+ years.
Thanks Andy. I wonder if the owner of the document knows this information or has ever cared to search further on the people mentioned?
Andy, I am impressed with your research skills and ability to put it in the right perspective.
Corey, isn’t the owner a Lost Cause Traditionalist? If so, facts and researched information means nothing to them, only their agenda.
Cornbread – research means alot to us and is how I find out if any information I receive is true or not true. You have no idea what we are about and what our beliefs are.
The information Andy is speaking of can easily be found on Family Search and anyone willing to do the research can find anything. Esp the truth of what the war was really about. (Slavery) Might try it out sometime..
Theophilus Tatum can be found in both Henrico county, Virginia and in Bladen county, North Carolina. But since Corey mentioned Richmond Howitzers, we are taking it that we are talking about the records that can be found in Virginia.
But hey, what do I know, information means nothing to us, just our Agenda.
Mark,
I am glad you stopped by becuase I have been wondering about your take on the use of anothers work on the Florida Cracker Newsletter…see my post here… http://kindredblood.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/scv-mc-hipocracy/
And I know that the CC license you can use it but the site in which you got the information must be identifed…and you did not. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/
Corey,
Any information on the Florida Cracker is up to the webmaster of the Cracker to dispute. I have already passed that info on to him for him to stop by your site and say his piece. Only time I ever get involved with the Florida cracker and your site (as far as taking pictures and info from the Florida Cracker and posting on your blog) is when it is a picture of mine.
Mark,
Thanks for responding….I see that when it comes to policing copyright viloations you have selective responsibility…nice.
Thanks again for the comments!
The page is from a family ledger, written by J.C. Tatum , my great Grand Father who served with the Richmond Howitzers. In later pages the names of slaves who were given their freedom and land are listed.
It also has hand written family wills that tell down to the candle stick what was owned and who got what. Including Servants.
Andy I read the Richmond Dispatch, August 16, 1861 ad. I thought it was spelled Tatom, a common thing for the times.
Let me pose a question , Even in todays society do children run away from home, Good Homes where they have everything money can buy? Do They?
I posted the page and let the readers decide for themselves!
I respect and am glad to have read y’alls take on the page!
“Even in todays society do children run away from home, Good Homes where they have everything money can buy? Do They?”
You understand that you’re comparing an adult man, Telemachus, to a child behaving irrationally, right? Do you understand why this sort of facile analogy is offensive? Do you understand how fundamentally disrespectful this is to Telemachus, dismissing his actions as those of a unthinking child?
The notion that African slaves were like children, who had to be cared for and guided and could not be trusted to make important decision for themselves, was central to the moral rationalization, even imperative, of slavery. It was used to justify the institution, and for slaveholders to convince themselves that they were acting in accordance with God’s will, because slaves would be lost without whites’ strict control. Even slaveholders like Robert E. Lee, who found the ownership and day-to-day management of slaves distasteful and kept it at arm’s length for most of his adult life, defended the institution on those same grounds when he wrote that “the painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”
Lee believed that slaves were like little children, who required supervision, guidance, and firm discipline, because they would be lost without it. He believed that “their subjugation may be necessary. . . & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence,” for their own good. I wouldn’t be surprised if Theophilus Tatum believed that, as well. But it’s a very disturbing thing if people are still making that defense of the practice.
Please give it some thought, Dave.
Yes Andy but you can’t pin the belief that blacks were inferior solely on the South,
Didn’t Lincoln say something to the effect that ” No man of your race will ever be the equal of ours” ?
Also stating that he had no inclination to make voters or jurors out of them?
It was a national belief that blacks were inferior! So the playing the race card on the south don’t float! It was a national belief and a national sin.
I may be wrong but wasn’t the colizination movement much stornger in the north?
And the north had many black exclusionary lawOHIO
The state had enacted Black Laws in 1804 and 1807 that compelled blacks entering the state to post bond of $500 guaranteeing good behavior and to produce a court paper as proof that they were free.
“No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement” Likwack wrote, “until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days.”
Citizens of the city’s “Little Africa” — largely a ghetto of wooden shacks owned by whites — appealed for a delay, and sent a delegation to Canada to try to find a place to settle there. But if the authorities were willing to offer more time, the Ohio mob was not, and whites in packs roamed through the black neighborhoods, burning and beating. The delegation came back from Upper Canada with the offer of a safe home from the governor. “Tell the Republicans on your side of the line that we royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us you will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of His Majesty’s subjects.”
About half of the city’s 2,200 blacks left, most of them apparently going to Canada. The proponents of strict enforcement of the Black Laws then discovered that they had driven off “the sober, honest, industrious, and useful portion of the colored population,” which lessened “much of the moral restraint … on the idle and indolent, as well as the profligate” among the rest
Connecticut
Discrimination against free blacks was more severe in Connecticut than in other New England colonies. Their lives were strongly proscribed even before they became numerous. In 1690, the colony forbade blacks and Indians to be on the streets after 9 p.m. It also forbid black “servants” to wander beyond the limits of the towns or places where they belonged without a ticket or pass from their masters or the authorities. A law of 1708, citing frequent fights between slaves and whites, imposed a minimum penalty of 30 lashes on any black who disturbed the peace or who attempted to strike a white person. Even speech was subject to control. By a 1730 law, and black, Indian, or mulatto slave “who uttered or published, about any white person, words which would be actionable if uttered by a free white was, upon conviction before any one assistant or justice of the peace, to be whipped with forty lashes. As early as 1717, citizens of New London in a town meeting voted their objection to free blacks living in the town or owning land anywhere in the colony. That year, the colonial assembly passed a law in accordance with this sentiment, prohibiting free blacks or mulattoes from residing in any town in the colony. It also forbid them to buy land or go into business without the consent of the town. The provisions were retroactive, so that if any black person had managed to buy land, the deed was rendered void, and a black resident of a town, however long he had been there, was now subject to prosecution at the discretion of the selectmen.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania laws forbid blacks from gathering in “tippling-houses,” carrying arms, or assembling in companies. These, however, were loosely or unevenly enforced. But throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free blacks, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the “free” blacks of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for “laziness” or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities.
ILLINOIS, INDIANA
The legal history of the black codes in these two states is essentially similiar, and in fact Illinois simply continued Indiana’s code when it organized as a territory.
The new states that entered the union in the North after the gradual emancipation of northern slaves were just as concerned as the old ones with maintaining their racial purity. To do so, they turned to an old practice in the North: the exclusion law. Slaves could not be brought into the Northwest Territories, under the ordinance of 1787, but slaves already there remained in bondage. Once states began to emerge from the old territories, most of them explicitly barred blacks or permitted them only if they could prove their freedom and post bond. Ohio offered the first example, and those that followed her into the union followed her lead on race.
Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation was passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.
David,
Thanks for commenting. And to answer you question with a question, do you really think that the slave had good homes where they had everything money can buy? Have you ever read anything about the living conditions of the slaves vs. their masters or hell, for that matter, the working condition of slaves?
I suggest the following book for starters… http://www.amazon.com/Runaway-Slaves-John-Hope-Franklin/dp/0195084519
Don’t let it winning the 2000 Lincoln Prize stop you from reading.
Just Answer the Question !
“Even in todays society do children run away from home, Good Homes where they have everything money can buy? Do They?”
Then I will reply to your questions.
Fair is fair!!
Dave, that question is so extremely racist (I hate to use that word because it is slung around so often anymore that it has nearly lost it’s meaning) that it doesn’t deserve an answer. As Andy said before, making the comparison of an adult Black man to a undeveloped child is offensive.
I have often said before, it is ironic that the Lost Cause Traditionalists are doing everything they can to prove that the very people they were trying to keep in bondage fought for the Confederates. They are welcoming (and paying dearly) a Black man with no record of having an ancestor in the Confederate Army to parade around in a reproduction uniform speaking about how proud he is of the South’s Confederate past.
The whole Lost Cause Traditionalist movement is rife with phonies and foolishness.
“Have you ever read anything about the living conditions of the slaves vs. their masters or hell, for that matter, the working condition of slaves”?
“Slavery and American Economic Development” by Gavin Wright!
Have someone read it to you!
DT.
Corey,
I do not have selective responsibility, as you call it. As far as answering the question as to where they got the picture, the editor needs to answer that. I cannot comment on something I know nothing about and will not pretend to know something about it just to satisfy you with a answer. I also have no control over what the editor decideds to place on the cracker.
In our ranks, we have certain steps we take to assure that all command is taking care of any problems. But as this is not something that deals directly with a command issue or a problem in our ranks, all info about the picture and listing needs to be directed to the editor.
As the Florida Cracker is an un-official newsletter of the SCV-MC, I will not comment on what is in it unless it has something to do with me or my Company.
Or unless I am asked to do so by the editor and/or my upper command.
I will not get into a debate with you over copy right [sic] rules or ethics.
thanks
Perhaps one of you folks could tell me what happened to Telemachus !
Did he run away ? Was he murdered? Did another slave owner offer him a better life?
Odds are he made a break for freedom! But we have no way of knowing “for sure” do we?
Did he have any mental problems? Come on folks let me know what happened to him!
My comparison of Telemachus to a child was inappropriate but far from racist.
The point I was trying to make was no matter what status you have in life sometimes you need to get away, and surely the life of a slave is one worth escaping.
But we have no way of knowing what happened to Telemachus, Did he have a heart attack and die, was he kidnapped, come on folks tell me What happened to him!
Did he return home after a vacation?
Y’all think about and let me know. And some documentation would be nice!
Have a Nice Day !
Andy appears to want the flight of Telemachus to negate whatever positive sentiments are expressed/evoked in the notebook entry. Any depiction of Southern slavery as other than the worst possible human experience in the annuls of mankind must be stamped out — otherwise, Theophilus Tatum might come across as less diabolical than he actually was, and that must not be allowed.
Yes, there’s a lot we can’t know so, in the absence of verifiable fact — negativize, negativize, negativize.
Connie,
So Telemachus flight was induced because he had it so good as a slave?
Neil
Neil — is that TRULY what you got out of my comment? Really?
I might as well be speakin’ Klingon.
Theophilus Tatum had several slaves. One of them ran away when he was in the employ of somebody who was *not* Theophilus. Did any of the others run away? No documentation has been presented that they did, so we don’t know.
Nor do we know *why* Telemachus ran away. Did he run away to go back home to Theophilus’s place? We don’t know.
But the absence of that knowledge presents us a wonderful opportunity to stick it to Theophilus and to cast doubt on the positive information in the notebook.
EDITORS NOTE: I HAVE POSTED THIS COMMENT ONLY TO SHOW HOW ENTRENCHED THE LOST CAUSE MYTHOLOGY IS WITHIN THE RANKS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SCV’S!
Why is no one answering Dave’s question. He has given you facts on Lincoln an on Black codes enforced in the North. But no one ever seems to want to comment on those. I myself in other posts have offered up the same info and again, no one ever wants to comment on that info. It seems to me you want to “ONLY BELIEVE AND THINK” slavery was a Southern thing and not remember slaver was here since the 1600′s and flew under the Spanish and Union flag as well.
No one has ever said in the South that slavery was not a issue. But it was NOT a Southern issue. If you read the real history, you will find it was brought up simply to stop British and French aid to the South. Lincoln had no intention of freeing slaves (Black or White Slaves) in any parts of the country. His EP only freed slaves in areas that were NOT under Union control. Why is that? If it was important to the Union cause and the reason thousands of Union soldiers left their homes and families to fight against the South, Why did he also free the slaves in the North with his EP? Answer that question.
The war was not a slavery issue, it was a issue of Peoples Rights. The very reasons we fought the British, the very reason people now are not happy with the government.
“Cornbread” you say “They are welcoming (and paying dearly) a Black man with no record of having an ancestor in the Confederate Army to parade around in a reproduction uniform speaking about how proud he is of the South’s Confederate past.” Where are you getting the information that Southern Heritage organizations is PAYING someone to dress up and promote Southern heritage? Or is this something you cannot confirm and made up?
You also say there is a black man, with no record of heritage parading around promoting the Southern cause. Well there are several people : black and white” who believe in the South. But if you are referring to anyone in the SCV, EVERY MEMBER has and is required to show proof of ancestry to become a member. H.K. Edgerton is one of those men. He is a great and honest proud man. He promotes his heritage and believes in what the SCV, the Confederacy and his heritage. He is educated in the REAL facts of this nation’s history and is just like me. Teaching the true history of this nation to people before people try and say it never happened… Mr. Edgerton is also a former President of the NAACP. He believes in every mans right, black, white, brown, etc.. has the same rights as everyone else. He stands up for those rights. He is a great man in my book and I am proud to stand beside him and any cause he fights for. For anyone..
So please stop trying to make up lies that People are being paid to represent the South. A true Southern Man doesn’t need to be paid, he does it for the love of the South and the true history of this Nation. Because if people like you get their way, our history will be swept under the rug and then later said it never happened.. Just like the Muslims in Germany are trying to say about Hitler and the Jewish people of those times..
History must be remembered. Good or bad. But I assure you, it needs to be the true history. The way it really happened. And trying to blame the entire slave trade on the South and the 4 years of the war is crazy. You need to also think about the slave trade that started here in the 1600′s and the time it flew under the Union flag (which it was alot longer than 4 years). People like you love to put blame on others without wanting to remember or talk about the rest of the blame. Blame needs to fall on a Nation as a hole for slavery, not a time period. This Nation had slavery before it was a Nation. Its founding fathers also owned slaves. We must also remember that NOT all slaves were Black. the Irish were also a big part of the slave trade. It was not about Color.
So stop blaming a 4 year period for slavery when you have been given so many real facts that slavery was a National issue, not a Southern issue. Answer the questions asked and stop hiding behind the race card.. Learn the real history of this nation, use it to teach our children what is right and what is wrong. And stop blaming the South and the war for slavery, it was and NEVER will be a Southern issue.. It was a Northern issue. The South wanted to be free from a controlling government, just like a Nation today wants to be. The same government that is trying to control you know was trying to control the South in very much the same ways..
Wake up before its too late.. Stop believing Union Northern controlled written history. History written to blind you from the real facts of why the South fought against the Union. For States Rights and individual rights as a man in this country..
Theophilus died in 1865, I’m looking for his will, to see if Telemachus is mentioned but with the emancipation of slaves he might not be listed even if he had returned!
Mark,
You constantly refer to the “real” history of the war and this country…could you explain what you are talking about…give some examples and sources?
Mark, are you saying that HK does not recieve remuneration for his efforts? At least two SCV members have told me that he gets $700-$1,000 per performance. Are you also saying that HK has proven that he has an ancestor that served in the Confederate Army? Is his SCV membership a honorary one or one like a descendant gets?
You want the “real” history? The “real” history is that the state’s rights or people’s rights that the South went to war over was mainly the right to have slaves. That was the main issue that the South seceded over, if there were any other reasons, they were minor and nearly insignificant compared to the slavery issue.
Facts and evidence means nothing to the Lost Causers. They do not want to know the “real” history.
Edgerton explicitly asks for $20K per appearance, plus mileage. He’s welcome to do that, of course, and asking is not the same as getting, but there’s a certain dissonance in doing so while simultaneously asking for donations because “we have no. . . support in any form other than from the public through their contributions and purchasing of our products.”
Miss Chastain,
No, you are not speaking ‘klingon,’ but I do believe you are making excuses, bad ones, everytime you seemingly desire to ‘soften’ the institution of slavery and let the mistakes of our ancestors get some kind of free pass so that we may have some kind of pride in them.
You cannot justify slavery, if you were a Southern slaveholder or a Northern carrier of slaves. There is no such thing as ‘Slavery Light’ and the term kindly slavemaster is one of the most horrible and disgusting I have ever seen when defending the actions of our slaveholding ancestors and slave carriers.
Each time I see these worn-out excuses/explanations touted I simply see the inability to face historical facts. How can anyone reconcile slavery as kind, or gentle or excusable in any form, in any region, in any time?
In my view, a person who advocates such, alludes to such, begins a tirade with such a view, has lost any credibility to comment on the topic at all. It is a form of desperation to justify such and to remain silent on this topic when others proclaim its ‘gentle’ or ‘kind’ nature, or bragg about all of the wonderful advantages of being a slave, simply condones such views that slavery wasn’t all that bad or that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
Its a nonstarter.
Neil
My goodness, Connie!
The main purpose of modern day historical study of the civil war (especially in the academic field) is to engage in some good ol’ race baitin’. Therefore, slavery must be portrayed in the worst possible light. Slanted interpretations and even outright lies are perfectly fine if it fulfills that main purpose. If you can’t do any good ol’ race baitin’ what’s this world comin’ to?
Mr. Hamilton,
How is it “softening” the institution of slavery to distinguish between being raped and not being raped? Between being beaten and not being beaten? Between being adequately provided for and not being adequately provided for?
I’m not asking for any kind of “free pass” for the mistakes of our ancestors. I don’t use the term kindly slavemaster except, perhaps, in discussing the use of it by others in discussions such as this one. I have never claimed slavery was kind or gentle or escusable. You’re welcome to try to find where I have advocated such. I know there are some who do, but the inability — or unwillingness? — to distinguish my argument from theirs, tells me about the motive and agenda of my critics.
If I may ask, why DO people like you insist on mischaracterizing my argument in this manner? How is it justification of slavery to make the distinctions that I make?
I simply point that there are aspects that the-worst-was-the-whole people ignore — deliberately, in my opinion. And when you combine the aspects they’re obsessed with the ones they ignore, you’re more likely to have the whole picture, and it is not the picture they want seen. They want to convince people that the worst was the whole, and I have drawn conclusions about why they want that.
You’re welcome to your opinion about who loses credibility for what. My opinion is that those who present the worst as the whole lose credibility, as well, particularly when they mischaracterize — and, frankly, lie about — the arguments of those who disagree with them.
You seem pissed off, but since you are criticizing me for something I don’t do, may I suggest you find someone who does to them, and aim your criticism and exasperation at them?
Miss Chastain,
“How is it “softening” the institution of slavery to distinguish between being raped and not being raped?” It is, Miss Chastain, because you ignore the overall “rape” of the human soul being raped of his humanity in the institution itself. You view a physical harm, no less despicable or horrible, and the lack of such harm as a degree somewhat lighter than the entire meaning and impact of the institution itself.
There is no degree to the harm slavery brings, no matter how it is implemented nor the degree of physical harm brought to bear on those enslaved who had no say if they were raped or not, sold or not, whipped or not, even if they were killed or not.
I would also point out that I have not said you yourself have used the terms “kindly slavemaster” or the term “free pass.” These were my descriptions of those I have seen give excuses about how good slaves had things when describing the ‘wonderful health care, free housing, etc.,’ by others on other forums at which they and you sometimes post on.
You do comment above about getting the ‘whole picture’ and how you have drawn conclusions about such people. As we both know, you are entitled to your own conclusions, so I will therefore conclude I am entilted to mine. My conclusion is that you and others at the site I have allueded to, are not presenting the whole picture, but a very partisan view that you all seem to share. It is in no way condusive to actual history and in no way comes close to a ‘whole picture’ scenario. Again, this is my conclusion, based on what I have read at the site and your own responses there and on your own site, “180 Degrees True South.” (Although I must say your recent posts there of music was excellent and you were 100% correct in your observation, “they simply don’t make music like that anymore.”)
Again, in my own opinion, based on my own personal views and research into the topic, those who try to justify slavery or minimize its impact on body and soul and then permit others to say such nonsense without challenge, are not permitting the “whole picture” of a brutal and dehumaninzing institution to come through honestly to those who view such statements.
Last, but not least, Miss Chastain, I am not “pissed” at you or anyone. There is no need for such for I do not feel anger towards you or anyone nor do I feel insulted by you or anyone.
I merely disagree with you.
Sincerely,
Neil
Neil writes, “There is no degree to the harm slavery brings, no matter how it is implemented nor the degree of physical harm brought to bear on those enslaved who had no say if they were raped or not, sold or not, whipped or not, even if they were killed or not.”
I understand this part of the sentence, “There is no degree to the harm slavery brings, no matter how it is implemented…” I’m not certain what the rest of it means…do you mean that the degree of physical harm, no matter what it was (from barely there to off the scale) is all the same to somebody who has no say in how they are treated? If that’s what you’re saying, I do not agree.
The fact is, you and I can’t speak of slavery from experience, so we have to guess, estimate, imagine, etc., how we would experience that situation — and how slaves in the past experienced it. I do know that the testimony of slaves themselves is all over the board and thus seems to indicate there were positives and negatives, and there were degrees of harm. It makes sense to me to take their word for it.
I wouldn’t want to be a slave, or a slaveowner (heck, all my working life, I avoided positions or declined promotions into positions where I would have to supervise subordinates). However,if I may pose a hypothetical….
Slavery is going to be imposed tomorrow. You get to choose who will be your master. The work required of you will be the same no matter which you choose — but one master is going to beat you and rape you and provide you with inadequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care; and the other is not going to beat and rape you, and will provide you with adequate food, clothing, shelter and medical care.
Do you mean to tell me that having the status of slave forced upon you renders you unable to tell the difference between those two situations? That being a slave so rapes your soul that what happens to you physically is of no consequence — that being raped is indistinguishable from not being raped? That being hungry is no different than being adequately fed? That may make sense to you. It doesn’t to me.
As far as the whole picture goes… I’ve explained this to Corey as it relates to the war; I’ll use the same analogy now with you re: slavery. Suppose slavery could be totally summed up as ABCDEF. Our culture knows all about ABC — the rapes, the beatings, to the point that many people in the USA think that’s WHAT slavery was, and that’s all it was. ABC is what you read in textbooks, it’s what you read on blogs like this one. It’s what you read in the the popular culture, and see on TV and in the movies. Basically, the only people who have missed the ABC of slavery are folks who may have been off-planet the past several generations…
So somebody comes along and says, “How about DEF. Let’s take a look at DEF.” Oh, the screeching, the teethnashing, the charges of racism and “slavery apologist.” “You’re ignoring ABC! You want to whitewash ABC, you want to “soften” slavery,” and so forth. Well, no. We just think ABC has been adequately covered — MORE than adequately covered. It’s the DEF that’s being ignored.
And, as you probably know, I have a theory about the reason why the focus is totally on the ABC of slavery, and why the DEF gets downplayed, ignored, even denied, and why those who bring up the DEF are excoriated as racists or whatever…. I bet you don’t agree with that, either. So let me end with something you might appreciate….
– Chuck Loeb —
CONNIE FROM HERE ON OUT IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO POST COMMENTS HERE…KEEP IT ON THE SUBJECT… ED.
Miss Chastain,
Thank you for your reply above.
Let me be clear. There is no ABC nor DEF when it comes to the equating the harm slavery does to a human being. It is my view that slavery, in and of itself, no matter what the degree of physical harm visited upon a particular slave, in no way increases or decreases the harm of the institution itself.
I gather you yourself instictively know this because of your own efforts not to be placed in a situation where you are in charge of others, because even this mild form tends to make you uncomfortable.
No, neither you nor I have not experienced slavery, not in the workplace, not in our private lives, nor I even in my 20 years of service with the US Army. Even my worst days in basic training under the harshest demands put upon me by my drill sergeants could not even come close to the horror of being a slave.
I myself cannot bring myself to look upon any condition of human slavery and find ANY of it less evil, less harsh, or to even consider it in anyway “kindly” in its application. It is simply a degree of evil, as I would view it a degree of ebola. It is merely a disease which begins gradually and then spreads, and then kills the spirit and body, no matter how gently the disease was first administered.
Its wrong when it is in your ABC catagorey and just as wrong in your DEF one also. One should not permit such a disease contaminate a body, no matter how slight the effects are because it will grow, fester, and finally cause infections that will spread far beyond the DEF catagories. Slavery infected everyone, from the people who are considered beasts, property, even pets or prized friends of the family, to the kindly owner all the way up to the rapist. The disease begins with little signs of outward sickness until it progresses to the final corrupting stage.
This is my point, Miss Chastain. Slavery in ANY form cannot be minimized, cannot be justified, no matter how lightly applied, no matter how severely implemented. The condition of slavery permits to much uncertainty, too much lattitude for extreme abuse, even under the most benign of conditions. If had not existed at all, we would not be discussing its abuses in ANY degree. DEF is not being ignored. It simply does not matter as it merely falls under the degenerative disease known as slavery.
Until our next post,
Neil
Stop hiding behind the written words of the Union government and do the research yourself. You cannot tell me that over 900,000 Americans (union and confederate) went to war and 623,000 of those men died, left their homes, lost their way of life – just to free or enslave people. You have got to be blind.
Growing up, my family spoke of stories from those times. Family records also show the tails. My family went to war against the Union to free themselves, not slaves. To free themselves from a tyrant. A government pushing people down. Just like that same government is doing today.
No way did my family, from the stories and the information I have-went to war, fought, bled, imprisoned and starved to free slaves. They did all that to free themselves. To have a better life for their families. Just like we did with Britain.
You guys need to wake up. The myth that the entire war was fought over slavery is only a cover for the real truth of what the government was doing to its people and still doing today.
Mark,
Why do you not understand that I have shown over and over that the North was not fighting to end slavery, but to preserve the Union. On the other hand, the south was fighting to preserve slavery and spread it throughout the nation and into the territories. The historical record proves this out over and over. It is you that hides behind the myth of the lost cause. It is very obvious from you understanding of the numbers that went to war that you have a very small grasp on the history of the war. How was the government then, under Lincoln pushing anyone down? Please do explain!
Mark says…”No way did my family, from the stories and the information I have-went to war, fought, bled, imprisoned and starved to free slaves.”
What in the world are you talking about? Did you family fight for the North or the south? If they fought for the south, sure they did not fight to free the slaves…they fought to keep them slaves and to preserve it.
And again you speak of this “real truth”…please explain!
Mark,
I am not hiding behind the words of the Union government and I have done the research myself.
As a former soldier myself, my reasons for enlisting in the US Army were my own, but at not time during my entire service career do I recall any US government official ever asking me if it was OK to fight in Vietnam, Grenanda, Iraq or Afghanistan. A soldier is a tool of his government and its policies and its goals. A Confederate soldier once commented on this fact stating,
“From this time on till the end of the war, a soldier was simply a machine, a conscript. It was mighty rough on rebels. We cursed the war, we cursed Bragg, we cursed the Southern Confederacy. All our pride and valor had gone, and we were sick of war and the Southern Confederacy. A law was made by the Confederate States Congress about this time allowing every person who owned twenty negroes to go home. It gave us the blues; we wanted twenty negroes. Negro property suddenly became very valuable, and there was raised the howl of “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight.” The glory of war, the glory of the South, the glory and the pride of our volunteers had no charms for the conscript.”
My four direct Confederate ancestors all owned slaves, one of them had seven in total. He enlisted in the 19th Virginia, the Nelson County Grays, with the Army of Northern Virginia. He was captured at the angle at Gettysburg during Picket’s Charge. I know exactly what he was fighting for, whether he wanted to or not, the stated goals of the Confederate government, which made it clear in its own Constitution, that the most important of these goals was the preservation of slavery. It said so, and so did the rest of the Confederate states by way of their declarations of secession, by way of their own state constitutions, and by the numerous speeches, documents, and newspaper articles they have left for us to read during our own research. It is a fact of recorded history, not the “words of the Union government” and cannot be disputed, in my view, only denied, by those who for some reason feel the need for such denial.
As for how the US government of the time was “pushing down” on the states that made up the Confederacy, I simply cannot go with that as we have a government that simply did not impact on the nation to the level that state governments did at that time. The only day-to-day contact by the federal government of the time was with the US Post Office. The Attorney General of the United States was a part-time position. Their were a handful of federal marshals, barely 16,000 US troops, mostly stationed west of the Mississippi, and a navy of obsolete ships scattered throughout the word’s oceans. No state lacked representation in the government, the majority of Presidents, Speakers of the House, cabinet positions, chairmanships, judges, etc., for the past 60+ years had been from Southern states. What pushing down can you see that would result in a Civil War?
And I have to point out it didn’t matter what your family or mine belived they were fighting for when it came to the Confederacy’s stated political goals, and like it or not, you are going to end up back at the issue of slavery behind those goals.
Until our next post,
Neil
Miss Chastain,
I discovered by viewing the SHPG facebook page that in your last post here, you attempted to give me access to several other songs, like the ones I had the pleasure of listening to on your 180 Degrees True South website.
I appreciate your attempt to do such, even thought we do not see eye-to-eye in our other discussions concerning the Civil War. It was quite thoughtful of you and I do appreciate your attempt at doing such.
However, as this is someone else’s blog and is therefore their property, I must go along with their rules and regulations on the matter.
Again, thank you for the intent of your musical addition. It is sincerely appreciated.
Until our next post,
Neil
My message was to convay that in NO WAY did my family go to war to inslave any man, keep any man in slavery or to free anyone but themselves from a tyrant.. Just like I said in the paragraph befor the one you are speaking of.. This goes for my family and the thousands of soldiers, Union and Confederate who fought and died.
Also Corey, if you are willing to hear the truth, why was the video I posted with my comment not added? It showed what many of the Southern states went thru and the men and civilians went thru during the war. Why would anyone go thru all that just to keep slavery..
Mark,
Your ancestors may have not gone off to war personally to keep blacks as slaves, but the government they fought for sure did. I did not include your video because I did not see the reason for it. It is pure lost cause propoganda and I took it out. However it is again plainly obvious you do not have a grasp on the history of the time period by your last commment. Why did southern states go through a war to keep slavery. Well lets see. Many felt it was the way of life that was being threatened by Lincoln’s election. So a way of life is worth fighting for even it that way of life is keeping 4 million others in bondage…at least according to the south. There was the financial concerns of keeping slaves and I suppose there were those willing to fight a war to keep something like 4 billion dollars in slaves…slaves. Start to get the point?
Also, I sent you an email…I see you have made comments about me at SHPG..claiming you have information about me and that you have sent that to you lawyer…care to share…put you cards on the table…I call your bluff!
Mark,
I thank you for replying to my post above.
First, I did understand that you were trying to make sure that I, and all on this particular thread, that you were stating your family “in no way” did “go to war to enslave any man, keep any man in slavery, or to free anyone but themselves from a tyrant.”
And in my post previous to the one you make the above statement shows that it did not matter what your family’s ancestors fought for as individuals. If they fought in the Confederate army, as my ancestors did, they signed up for their own personal reasons and fought for a Confederate government that suborned those individual reasons to their national goals. The United States government did the very same thing to me and my individual reasons for joining the US Army. Again, there is no vote taken, no poll conducted among soldiers by their government if they approve of a reason for sending them off to fight. It has never been that way, and it never will be. This goes for the thousands of soldiers, Union and Confederate, who died, and survived the Civil War.
As for why slavery was the main cause of the war, we have thousands of examples in speeches, documents, newspapers, historical sources, that show that slavery was THE issue that separated the Free States from the Slave States. We see most of the political controversy of the period involved with the Slave question and most of the friction from that very same issue. There were obviously people, important, powerful people, who felt the institution was worth fighting for. And we have evidence there were a majority in the Confederacy who had no problem with supporting that fight.
Until our next post,
Neil