Fun with Slavery: Dark Spots in a Shining Sea of Twaddle

Guest Post by Fred Reed

Much is written about slavery and its aftermaths. A large part of this is frenetically modified history issuing from people both excited and poorly read, a comic-book version apparently intended to support agendas of the impenetrably adolescent Left. A few points:

First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous, much worse in the Deep South than in Tidewater  or New York, and consequent to the same desire for cheap labor that now results in importing Mexicans and exporting jobs to China. Any notion that abuses were rare or exaggerated is twaddle.  A vast amount of contemporary writing documents this. The best-known account  of slavery in the South is is Journal of a Residence on a Georgia  Plantation by Fanny Kemble, a British actress actress who married a planter in, as the title suggests, Georgia. Also contemporary, and little known, Slavery as it is in America: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses. An  account of the horrific  Northern variety is Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

Second, the slave trade being phenomenally  profitable, much like the drug trade today, many were involved who today choose to forget this: Yankees, Arabs, Jews, Quakers, and Southerners. It was strongly defended by many Christians in the South, and attacked by Christians in the North, who had no financial stake in it. Yankees owned slaves and, in the draft riots in New York in 1863, lynched and burned them alive. In this world angels are few on the ground.  The North now simply lies about it.

Not well known, by design: Wikipedia: “In 1741 Manhattan had the second-largest slave population of any city in the Thirteen Colonies after Charleston, South Carolina.”  In the revolt of that year, blacks were hanged and burned alive. In New York. Many similar things happened, now artfully forgotten.

Third, among the historically illiterate a notion exists that the South consisted of rich aristocrats living in mansions. A few, yes. Most, not even close. Poverty among whites in the South and the associated Appalachia was often extreme.

Fourth, freeing the slaves was an easy solution if you didn’t have the problem. If you were a planter with a wife and three little girls, would you give up your house and subject your family to poverty, rape, robbery, and revenge from blacks? I am not asking whether you think they should have done it, but whether in the circumstances you would do it. Another way of putting it: For what moral cause would you, today, give up your job, house, and investments, and step on the sidewalk with your family?

You might have done what many slaveowners did, what George Washington did: free your slaves in your will. (This reminds me of Saint Augustine’s cry, “Oh Lord, grant me chastity, but not just yet.”) You could thus express your opposition to slavery while enjoying its benefits.

Fifth, many today would say that Southerners deserved their problems, having brought them on themselves by enslaving blacks. But of course they did not. By 1861 most were born into a slaveholding society. Most were not enthusiastic about it, but had little idea what to do.

Anyone interested in just how divided whites were about slavery might the debates in 1831-2 in the Virginia House of Delegates. There was heated argument favoring no emancipation, gradual emancipation, immediate and total emancipation, and Lincoln’s solution of sending blacks back to Africa.

They ended by doing nothing. Part of the sentiment favoring keeping slavery came from Tidewater, where large landholders depended on slavery, and partly from the sense of having the tiger by the tail: “Dear God, what now?”

Sixth–and important–was the Haitian slave revolt of 1791-1804, of which few Americans have heard. Black Haitians butchered and tortured the whites in an unspeakable bloodbath. Southerners, well aware of this, decided that freeing the slaves would be mass suicide. As it happened when the slaves were emancipated after the Civil War, no bloodbath came. Events in Haiti provided ample reason for not taking the chance.

The sentiment was reinforced in 1831 by Nat Turner’s revolt in which slaves in Virginia revolted and butchered some sixty whites, families included. I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would. The slaughter did not reassure surrounding Virginians.  Again, slavery was an easy problem to solve if you didn’t have it.

Seventh, Southerners believed that they knew the Negroes and that they could not function as equals of whites and thus would destroy society. Except for ardent abolitionists–perhaps for ardent abolitionists–so did Northerners, but by then these latter didn’t have many Negroes and never expected to. Today, a century and a half after the Civil War, the Southerners seem to have been right.

Eighth, controversy, usually witless,  persists over whether the South fought to preserve slavery. The usual approach is to quote Southern planters, politicians,  and newspapers as to the sacred quality of the peculiar institution and how God liked it. QED.

But of course these were the slave-owners, the rich, and their hangers on. They favored slavery for the same reason American businesses favor remote wars in Afghanistan: they make money at it. People do not fight bloody wars over years for the benefit of people that, after the war, they will have no desire to associate with. If you had asked a thousand Confederate infantrymen why they were fighting, do you think they would have said, “I’m fighting and dying and seeing my friends screaming gutshot so that rich bastards can own slaves while I live in a shack?”

You, the reader, probably do not favor mistreatment of women and girls. Would you favor fighting a war in Afghanistan in which America would lose over six and a half million dead–proportionately to population, what the country lost in the Civil War–to impose civil rights for women  in Afghanistan?

Ninth, hypocrisy. You, the reader, probably live (as I long did) in a society in which millions of blacks live pointless lives, shooting each other  in decaying cities with horrible schools. If you are a Yankee of the usual intolerable virtue, as so many are, note that blacks suffer these awful conditions  chiefly in Southern cities such as Trenton, Newark, Camden, Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Flint, Gary, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington DC. What have you done about it–other than, perhaps, talk? And you are in no danger of the consequences of whatever you might propose. Southerners were.

Tenth, it is worth noting that the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, now also sold as a moral measure by the sainted Lincoln, in fact freed not a single  slave. It applied only in the Southern states, where it was intended to ignite a revolt. Slaves in the North remained in slavery. Lincoln himself said, in letter after letter after document after speech and before Congress, over and over and over, that he  would not oppose slavery in the South if only it would come back to the Union, and–yes, boys and girls–he wanted to send blacks back to Africa.

But the textbooks come from New York.

Contemporary drawing of the 1863 draft riots in New York. Hangings and burnings alive occurred in this racially righteous city.

IN fact, the North wanted no blacks of any kind, having discovered that sweating European immigrants was more profitable. If you own slaves, you have to feed them and care for them no matter the business climate. This was suited to an agricultural economy. But the North was industrial. It made more sense to pay helpless immigrants almost nothing while they lived in tubercular filth with their children working twelve hours a day and dying of preventable diseases. After all, the next ship in would bring more. In short, it was the moral equivalent of slavery but more cost-effective and without the stigma.

More from New York. Kum Ba Ya.

Eleventh, edited out of history for an American public with a bumper-sticker mind is that slavery was a product of the North. Slave ships in hundreds left from New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut for Africa. When the slave trade was outlawed in 1808, Northern slavers sold contraband slaves to the South or to the godawful sugar-raising West Indies or to South America. The North grew rich from the cotton of the South,  financed its plantations, and provided the slaves. Further huge profits came from trading in the products of the sugar plantations, which it turned into rum.

The North had tens of thousands of slaves itself. It not infrequently burned blacks alive, connived at the kidnapping of free blacks to sell to the South, returned runaway slaves. When abolition-minded whites set up schools for blacks, Northern mobs attacked them and Northern courts refused to do anything about it.   Again, Complicity is a good account.

We drift in a sea of historical fraud.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
21 Comments
Dutchman
Dutchman
July 14, 2017 2:51 pm

Slavery is alive and well in the US – right now – today!

Every working / tax paying citizen is paying for migrant Muslim fucks (like 50,000 from Somalia). We pay for their housing, SNAP, medicaid, assistance, interpreters, schooling, phones – while these worthless fucks drive late model Lexus, etc. And if that’s not enough – they bring over the grandparents – who are too old to work – and we pay for those lousy fucks too.

Don’t tell me about slavery.

rhs jr
rhs jr
July 14, 2017 3:09 pm

Even liberals are sorry so many ex-slaves went North; liberals can’t even pay anybody to take them and they keep flooding in; it’s Muhammadans they love now but the results will be even worse.

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
July 14, 2017 3:13 pm

Slaves were expensive. Any slave being burned or hung was stolen property. No sane slave master would wantonly destroy his own property. On the contrary it was in his interest to keep them healthy so that they would breed. Slaves were also expensive to maintain. Some of what they required could be maintained from the product of the land. Food, drink and housing. Some could not. Clothes, shoes, tools, medical care. Some were productive and others were not, such as the elderly.

If a slavemaster bred and sold slaves, he was making money from it. If he did not, as neither Jefferson nor Washington did, then a rising population of slaves ate out the profit of the plantation and slavery was not profitable at all, but rather a burden.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
  Zarathustra
July 14, 2017 4:13 pm

Yes, slavery was dying because it was inefficient…free men could be hired more cheaply, did a better job, and when they died (often), it was no problem…

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
  Zarathustra
July 14, 2017 9:18 pm

I will just add this. My Zambian gf doesn’t give a fuck about slavery. She just wants me to fix (or have fixed) the the tire on her mercedes while she is at work. Can’t really bitch about it tomorrow, since it’s a weekend….

NickelthroweR
NickelthroweR
July 14, 2017 3:25 pm

Greetings,

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The sociopaths in the deep state only see and only think about short term profit. Right now, it makes the owners of the NGO’s (Senators and Congressmen) tons of money as they get to divvy up the $250,000 it takes to settle in a family of Somalis that will never acclimate to American ideals. Lifetime welfare benefits will swallow up even more from the taxpayer over the lifetime of aforementioned economic refugee. The icing on the cake is that they’ll vote for democrats.

unit472
unit472
July 14, 2017 3:48 pm

Fourty percent of the black population of Richmond, Virginia per the 1850 census were free. I’m sure it was far less in the Deep South but the notion that all American blacks were slaves up until the passage of the 13th Amendment is wrong and even where a person was a slave it did not mean they were consigned to a life of unremitting toil in the fields. There were skilled slaves whose owners ‘rented’ them out. These rental slaves did not travel in slave coffles and worked for money wages which were split with their owner. It had to be that way otherwise the ‘slave’ had no incentive to do the work properly. Others were the much derided ‘House Niggers’ who lived lives not much different than that of a white servant for the Vanderbilts or an English aristocrat.

Slavery in America was a varied institution. Brutal in some cases but a more relaxed lifestyle than mere employment in others. It couldn’t fail to be as people are humans and develop bonds to each other when their lives are intertwined.

If you were born a slave on a family farm you became part of the enterprise. Your future depended on the success of that enterprise as much as the owner. If he went bankrupt guess who got ‘sold down the river’ and that was to lose the only home and people you had ever known.

pyrrhus
pyrrhus
July 14, 2017 4:15 pm

Martin Van Buren, 8th President, grew up in New York. His family owned 6 slaves….

Dutchman
Dutchman
  pyrrhus
July 14, 2017 4:20 pm

Who want’s to own a Nigger? They don’t work now. I can’t believe they worked then either.

General
General
  Dutchman
July 14, 2017 5:01 pm

They worked. Maybe not well.

It isn’t talked about much, but I am sure quite a few were sex slaves. Which is why most blacks in the US, are actually mixed now.

Fleabaggs
Fleabaggs
  Dutchman
July 14, 2017 6:21 pm

Dutchman.
You’re onto something. The people in the Barbados were an experiment with Irish Catholic slaves bred to Negro slaves in the hopes of getting a harder working but heat and disease resistant variety.

Arnold Ziffel
Arnold Ziffel
  Dutchman
July 14, 2017 11:16 pm

The South Africans imported East Indians because the blacks had such a poor work ethic.

Fleabaggs
Fleabaggs
July 14, 2017 6:24 pm

This is the best article I’ve seen on the net that wasn’t located in an obscure hard to find archive.

i forget
i forget
July 14, 2017 7:32 pm

Began “The Other Slavery – The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America” (Andres Resendez) the other night. 12.5 million African slaves (made a 20% dent in African populations). Indians, perhaps as many as 5 million enslaved. But a much bigger dent:

“In the Caribbean basin, along the Gulf coast, & across large regions of northern Mexico & the American Southwest native populations were reduced by 70, 80, or even 90% through a combination of warfare, famine, epidemics & slavery. Biology gets much of the blame for this collapse, but as we shall see, it is impossible to disentangle the effects of slavery & epidemics.”

Indians were slaving each other before euros arrived. And continued slaving after euros showed up. “Everybody” else was doing it, too. SNAFU.

That’s tribes, people in congealed globs – more than enough globsmacks to leave more than a mark. Everywhere, everywhen. Including current times.

Hondo
Hondo
July 14, 2017 11:02 pm

I often wonder why blacks can’t function in even the remotest corner of a functioning society. They can’t behave themselves in school, on the streets, in the theaters, the parks, or anywhere else for that matter. I’ve worked on three different continents, in seven different countries, and many cities in those countries, and it is always the same old question: What to do whit black people. I’m sick of it. Their brain can go from calmness to total sensory overload meltdown in a microsecond. They get good money on Friday, but without exception, broke on Monday. They get insurance on a new car just long enough to get it financed and then drop the policy. They get a new home and squander the mortgage payment on novelty of newness trinkets then scream racism when evicted. They refuse to save, refuse to plan, and categorically refuse the responsibility for their own failure. Their kids run up and down the apartment hallways like hyenas, up and down the streets of our neighborhoods stealing anything not nailed down, and are seemingly unashamed of any sin they commit upon anyone for the slightest perceived offense. I’m not on a rant, I just wish the hell they would grow up or get back up in the trees. Roost on!

Arnold Ziffel
Arnold Ziffel
  Hondo
July 14, 2017 11:19 pm

They will never grow up. When you get down to the root problems of black culture, it is about Darwin’s theory on natural selection. Whites and Asians consider the attributes of a potential mate they will have offspring with. Do they have desirable physical traits? Are they intelligent? Do they practice deferred gratification? Do they have high impulse control? Are they virtuous? These are the foundation building blocks of the nuclear family.

Blacks on the other hand replace natural selection with sexual promiscuity. Since their mating is indiscriminate, they fail to consider future implications but seek only instant gratification. Thus, in thousands of years they haven’t increased their IQ. Male and female facial characteristics are very similar. There hasn’t been any progress either towards any kind of aesthetic ideal. Nuclear families rarely exist. Evolution for blacks stopped on the African plains thousands of years ago.

Does Western Civilization have 10,000 years to allow blacks to evolve?

Col. B. Bunny
Col. B. Bunny
  Hondo
July 15, 2017 2:27 am

Vast numbers of whites would rather set their hair on fire than admit the truth of what you wrote.

Is there a black school district where the prime directive is “Think like white people”? Shaniqua and Lemonjello they laugh.

Davebee
Davebee
July 15, 2017 12:52 am

No mention is made here on the Industrial Scale slavery/slave raids by the Muslim Arabs on the populations of East and Central Africa. This was still ongoing at the time of David Livingstone’s journey’s by the way.
Oh, and also no mention as to the mechanics or everyday logistics of just how US Southern States slaves were actually acquired, here’s the low down: By means of fellow West Africans that’s how.
Do you really imagine a few white sailors arrived on the shores of modern day Ghana or Nigeria, stepped ashore and just casually rounded up a few hundred thousand locals and shipped them off to ol’ Virginny?
Of course not, the actual slavery heavy lifting was done with the enthusiastic and greedy assistance of on-site African headmen, kings and chiefs. (who, incidentally happened to be holding hundreds of their very OWN slaves)
Ever see that on SJW pamphlets? Thought not.

underfire
underfire
  Davebee
July 15, 2017 12:11 pm

True. WDM Bell wrote about large scale slavery still going on in central Africa in the early 1900s. The Abyssinian’s were the primary purveyors of the trade. Most of these captured blacks at that time were sent north to the muslim countries, over the Sahara desert as the British navy, patrolling the African coast for slave runners, made movement of slaves difficult from the coast.

Huge numbers of these slaves were said to have died of thirst on the journey, as well as many of the males bleeding to death from castration, as the penis as well as the testicles were cut. Also interesting in Bell’s writings was the referral to cannibalism of slaves. These were young girls, purchased as slaves, and intentionally fattened to be slaughtered in times when protein was short. He wrote that girls were used as they dressed out better. They also seemed compliant and excepted their fate.

Vic
Vic
July 15, 2017 2:27 am

Also no mention of the Irish slaves Cromwell captured while trying to take over Ireland, after the English Civil War, and then shipped out to the colonies. Which was continued, I understand, after Charles II’s restoration. It was a nice way to get rid of the “troublemakers” and prisoners in Ireland. The Irish slaves were treated much worse than the black slaves because blacks were expensive to transport, but there were so many Irish, they were cheap and their journey was much shorter, and therefore,, they were considered not as valuable as the black slaves.

fleabaggs
fleabaggs
  Vic
July 15, 2017 4:25 pm

Vic.
Right. Iv’e written several long comments on that very thing here and it went over like lead balloon.