My new Book released- Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,613
Reaction score
3,221
@Bilbobaggins

Black's Law Dictionary defines a slave this way:

A person who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another. Webster. One who Is under the power of a master, and who belongs to him ; so that the master may sell and dispose of his person, of his industry, and of his labor, without his being able to do anything, have anything, or acquire anything, but what must belong to his master. Civ. Code La. art. 35.

I propose you try to fit your argument into those definitions. This cannot be done because aforementioned argument does not recognize the humanity or human rights of the subject, or that subject's right to speak. It's considered rather rude to refer to someone in the third person when that someone is in the room...like an elephant.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,901
Reaction score
4,627
"Many of the planters are northerners...they become thorough, driving planters...Their treatment of their slaves is also far more rigid. Northerners are entirely unaccustomed to their habits, which are perfectly understood and appreciated by southerners, who have been familiar with Africans from childhood...Inexperience leads him [the northern planter] to hold the reins of government over his novel subjects with an unsparing severity, which the native ruler of these domestic colonies finds wholly unnecessary. The slave always prefers a southern master, because he knows that he will be understood by him. His kindly feelings toward, and sympathies with slaves, as such, are as honourable to his heart as gratifying to the subjects of them. He treats with suitable allowance those peculiarities of their race, which the unpractised northerner will construe into idleness, obstinacy, laziness, revenge, or hatred. There is another cause for their difference of treatment to their slaves. The southerner, habituated to their presence, never fears them, and laughs at the idea. It is the reverse with the northerner: he fears them, and hopes to intimidate them by severity."
-Joseph Ingraham, The South-West by a Yankee. New -York Harper and Brothers, Cliff-ST Vol 2 1835
Page number please, also what is the authors expertise in this observation? Is he a professional explorer and observer or a lay person?
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,901
Reaction score
4,627
Thank you all for your patience. I thought it best to post a section of my intro (I am not giving too much away, this can be read on Amazon "preview," I believe) to my chapter on southern slavery as I do not want it to come off wrong. I have never been one for PC, but I also do not desire to be misrepresented either!!! Besides, I think there will be plenty of content to dispute for knowledgeable, scholarly, perhaps a bit unruly, good Union men such as yourselves.


Neither this first chapter nor this book as a whole are meant in any way to justify slavery in the South. Few could be more for liberty and against any form of slavery than me. As a Christian libertarian-minded individual, slavery in all forms, wage labor, indoctrination, ownership of human property, etc., to me, are all proof of a fallen world. Even defenders of slavery, such as James Hammond of South Carolina, admitted slavery was not desired. He said no one in heaven is a slave, and any perfect paradise one could imagine would not include slavery. Slavery Hammond believed was a result of a fallen world, and only God could abolish it.

What I aim to do in the chapter is to take the lawyer's role of defending the South while searching for a more historically accurate depiction of slavery, in this way we can learn the truth about slavery while still condemning it. What follows will not give an entirely fair account of slavery in the South. It is meant only to tell the side of slavery that is not given to the public. For example, a source I will often use is Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project. This collection is made available online by the Library of Congress. It contains thousands of interviews with former slaves and is an excellent first-hand account of slavery from the perspective of slaves themselves. In this collection, and others like it which I will also use from time to time, you will find some of the most horrific accounts of torture, rape, beatings, mistreatment, neglect, and murder involved with the slave system in the South. These evils did occur. But you will not see me quote any of these examples for two reasons.

The first is because the typical understanding of slavery we are given in schools, newspapers, books, magazines, and documentaries already includes these undoubted facts. So there would be no gain from repeating or reinforcing that perception. Secondly, I am here taking the role of a lawyer defending a client, so I seek to only present data that puts my client in a better light. This is not lying or an attempt at being misleading, but it is, in our case, telling more of the truth, the parts that are regularly omitted or overlooked.

We all have learned of the worst evils of slavery in the South; this is not the whole picture, and in some ways is misleading. The Northern Republicans demonized the South and slaveowners to help convince the Northern population they were justified in eradicating the agrarian South. If you want to take others' wealth on a large scale and mold them to your own image, it helps first to degrade those you steal from to justify your actions. This is what the North has accomplished. So I assume we all have had this portrayal of slavery given us. This chapter is meant to provide the rest of the picture to provide a fuller, more historically accurate understanding of the slave system to the reader.

James Kennedy points out that we should also keep in mind that the evils of slavery are common to humanity as a whole. Terrible sins that occurred during slavery can happen whenever one sinful human being has power over another, as the totalitarian governments of the past century displayed. As a Christian, I believe the family unit is a good thing, yet it can also be abused. A father murders a son; a wife kills her husband or child; domestic violence, rape, etc all occur. But that does not make the family unit wrong, only wrong in the way it was used; it misused its intention. It is the same with police; their job and purpose are good, but there will always be abuse in a fallen world with fallen men.

Again, I am not saying that slavery was an ideal institution like the family or should be promoted as families are. What I am saying is that looking at only the worst examples and then claiming the whole system was like that is deceitful. It might help demonize a particular section or people who differ from us, but it will obscure rather than reveal the full truth. The latter is what I hope to do here.

Slavery, as we are commonly expected to imagine it, was not the condition of the majority of slaves in the American South. In her book A Grandmother's Recollections of Dixie, Southerner Mary Bryan said of slavery, "No subject has ever been so misrepresented as has this one." Our modern view of slavery started with the political works of abolitionists before the Civil War and later post W.W.2, when all the survivors of slavery were deceased. While it is true that horrible things happened during slavery, Southern writers would maintain that these were more exception, than rule.

A historical understanding of slavery can show us how loving relationships were formed even in adverse conditions. Black and white share a common history that does not need to cause division today. Nothing is used more in modern politics than slavery to divide and conquer "we the people," to set us up against each other. I hope to unite us rather than further divide us.

Further, we should not forget the North maintained slavery in various states throughout the war, and many Southern slave owners were native to the North or still lived in the North. In 1860, in Social Relations in our Southern States, Southern slaveowner Daniel Hundley blamed the vast majority of the evils committed against slaves on former Yankees who had bought plantations in the South over the past 50 years. These owners did not inherit slaves but got in the "business," caring only for money. In Plantation Life Before Emancipation, southerner R.Q. Mallard wrote, "while there were many honorable exceptions, as a general rule, the Northerners made the severest masters; and the explanation given was that they had not grown up with and formed attachments to the negro." In his Ottawa speech in 1858, Abraham Lincoln seems to agree when he says, "Some Northern [men] go South, and become most cruel slave-masters." Northerner Joseph Ingraham visited the South and agreed when he said of the planters of Mississippi:

"Many of the planters are northerners...they become thorough, driving planters...Their treatment of their slaves is also far more rigid. Northerners are entirely unaccustomed to their habits, which are perfectly understood and appreciated by southerners, who have been familiar with Africans from childhood...Inexperience leads him [the northern planter] to hold the reins of government over his novel subjects with an unsparing severity, which the native ruler of these domestic colonies finds wholly unnecessary. The slave always prefers a southern master, because he knows that he will be understood by him. His kindly feelings toward, and sympathies with slaves, as such, are as honourable to his heart as gratifying to the subjects of them. He treats with suitable allowance those peculiarities of their race, which the unpractised northerner will construe into idleness, obstinacy, laziness, revenge, or hatred. There is another cause for their difference of treatment to their slaves. The southerner, habituated to their presence, never fears them, and laughs at the idea. It is the reverse with the northerner: he fears them, and hopes to intimidate them by severity."
-Joseph Ingraham, The South-West by a Yankee. New -York Harper and Brothers, Cliff-ST Vol 2 1835
I also see a lot of opinions without references, please provide something than opinions.

Include page numbers for the reference.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,901
Reaction score
4,627
Further, we should not forget the North maintained slavery in various states throughout the war, and many Southern slave owners were native to the North or still lived in the North. In 1860, in Social Relations in our Southern States, Southern slaveowner Daniel Hundley blamed the vast majority of the evils committed against slaves on former Yankees who had bought plantations in the South over the past 50 years. These owners did not inherit slaves but got in the "business," caring only for money. In Plantation Life Before Emancipation, southerner R.Q. Mallard wrote, "while there were many honorable exceptions, as a general rule, the Northerners made the severest masters; and the explanation given was that they had not grown up with and formed attachments to the negro." In his Ottawa speech in 1858, Abraham Lincoln seems to agree when he says, "Some Northern [men] go South, and become most cruel slave-masters." Northerner Joseph Ingraham visited the South and agreed when he said of the planters of Mississippi:
Please defend Dixie without attacking the Yankees. That is your purpose, to show the knightly Southerners as above the Yankees, not just following mindless in their footsteps into the mud.

1681965207971.png
 
Last edited:

Bilbobaggins

Active Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
49
Hi everyone, thank you once more for your responses and interest. A time sensitive action is need regarding my nearly finished book that I am very excited about and so that has taken away my interest and time. But do not worry, I have read over the posts, taken notes, and I will respond!!!!

God bless.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,489
Reaction score
5,684
A historical understanding of slavery can show us how loving relationships were formed even in adverse conditions. Black and white share a common history that does not need to cause division today.
Your whole post #85 is troubling from blaming the North for demonizing slavery and loving relationships between master and slave.
There is a power dynamic between slaves and masters that favors the slave master. The North wanted slavery to end because it is evil. Any perceived display of affection from slaves towards their slave masters is considered coerced because of the power dynamics between the two parties.

Think of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, no one would ever call it a mutually loving relationship even if both loved each other. He control everything and raised his children from her as slaves and never freed them in his lifetime. They talk about slave body men searching for their dead masters on battlefields and returning them to their master's parents. No one would call them friends because the relationship is coercive. You have blinders on to the whole relationship between masters and their slaves.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,489
Reaction score
5,684
I will share when I am ready, but it is a bit crazier then this one!!!!
I suggest you need to find Neo-confederate and Lost Cause podcasts and radio shows to promote your book and white supremacy ones as well. You are just arguing their talking points. Nonthing I have not seen before...
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,613
Reaction score
3,221
Your whole post #85 is troubling from blaming the North for demonizing slavery and loving relationships between master and slave.
There is a power dynamic between slaves and masters that favors the slave master. The North wanted slavery to end because it is evil. Any perceived display of affection from slaves towards their slave masters is considered coerced because of the power dynamics between the two parties.

Think of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, no one would ever call it a mutually loving relationship even if both loved each other. He control everything and raised his children from her as slaves and never freed them in his lifetime. They talk about slave body men searching for their dead masters on battlefields and returning them to their master's parents. No one would call them friends because the relationship is coercive. You have blinders on to the whole relationship between masters and their slaves.
In those times, sleeping with a sister-in-law was considered incest. Sally Hemmings was Martha Wayles Jefferson's half-sister. This relationship didn't matter, you see, because Sally was black and therefore not related to Martha or to Jefferson's other children. He could keep his promise of never re-marrying because Sally was black, and so were her kids. No inheritance for them.

Pretty convenient distinction, isn't it? And this is a very, very lightweight example of this type of mental health problem. The slave owners had to twist their minds around and pay preachers to soothe their consciences in church because otherwise they couldn't do to their slaves what they would never think of doing to somebody else.

This kind of an 'institution' can only warp everyone involved in it, willing or not. There's certainly no possible defense of it.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,489
Reaction score
5,684
Hey @Bilbobaggins, let's move to the part about the Union before Lincoln... It sounds like that may be something new to talk about...
 

Bilbobaggins

Active Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
49
Hey @Bilbobaggins, let's move to the part about the Union before Lincoln... It sounds like that may be something new to talk about...
We have not even started the slavery debate. I do apologize for being busy, I will have time soon and so we can debate slavery first.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,489
Reaction score
5,684
We have not even started the slavery debate. I do apologize for being busy, I will have time soon and so we can debate slavery first.
I so far see nothing new in your argument expect you did use eyewitness accounts of slaves but in the end you paint the same picture that other Southern apologists have painted.

Lyon Tyler the son of President John Tyler wrote a book about Lincoln and he defended his Southern ancestors. He wrote a book saying Lincoln was a dwarf...


Tyler's own personal prejudices rendered him incapable of sober judgment on Lincoln. He never could have produced a balanced treatment of the Lincoln presidency. Tyler had created his own myth, an imaginary Old South in which happy slaves sang in the heat as they bent over the cotton plant while the benevolentPage [End Page 41]and beloved master read Cicero in the shade of a veranda, freed from labor to pursue the life of the mind. This idealized South, the South of Margaret Mitchell's great novel, never existed except in the minds of those like Tyler who so desperately wished to believe the best of their ancestors. As Tyler wrote, "the present generation of Southern men ... see no reason to be ashamed of the conduct of their ancestors." The mythical Lincoln was an open affront to the Lost Cause Tyler spent a lifetime nurturing. "The Lincoln myth," declared Merrill Peterson, "endangered the Confederate myth." For that reason most of all, Tyler had to assail Lincoln's god-like postmortem reputation. [28]

Here is the book:

 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,901
Reaction score
4,627
We have not even started the slavery debate. I do apologize for being busy, I will have time soon and so we can debate slavery first.
I look forward to your arguments. Can you clarify if slavery was the primary reason for secession for Dixie? Because it seems to me your argument implies that because of your defense of slavery in Dixie.
 

Bilbobaggins

Active Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
49
I look forward to your arguments. Can you clarify if slavery was the primary reason for secession for Dixie? Because it seems to me your argument implies that because of your defense of slavery in Dixie.
I would much rather hold off on that until we move to my next chapter on the causes of the session. It is more complicated than a yes or no answer. But I will say that slavery, and all it entailed, such as the federal government's intuition in the rights of the states over the issue of slavery, was the primary cause of the Cotton States leaving the Union.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
2,613
Reaction score
3,221
We're ready - why aren't you? Just me, but I believe two weeks is sufficient to begin a debate on this subject. You seem loath to do that. That suggests you know you can't defend secession as a states rights issue brought on by federal interference with slavery. We can discuss the matter of the Wanderer, for instance, and the plot by Mississippi planters to goad the federal government over the ending of the African slave trade. I'm sure this would be one of your primary points, would it not? Somebody was sitting on a keg of gunpowder playing with matches - let's see who!
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
16,489
Reaction score
5,684
I would much rather hold off on that until we move to my next chapter on the causes of the session
No...you wrote on the topic of 19th Dixie so you should be able to debate us without a second thought. You should be able to post a comment everyday without much effort but or move on to a topic you can write with ease. I do not see why it takes weeks to defend your printed words...
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,901
Reaction score
4,627
IMHO
Let's wait until such time as Bilbobaggins responds with something substantial. That is a lot less energy to put forth than complaining about the delays.
 

Bilbobaggins

Active Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2021
Messages
109
Reaction score
49
I must apologize again; I am sure many have lost interest, but please do not. I am waiting for time to be "fully engaged" and dedicated to this forum because I think we will have some great discussions. I am finishing two books simultaneously, and it has consumed my time, along with personal business, staying in shape, homeschooling, etc. When I do return, I will commit to this thread as it deserves to be.

Thank you. God bless.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,510
Reaction score
3,157
I must apologize again; I am sure many have lost interest, but please do not. I am waiting for time to be "fully engaged" and dedicated to this forum because I think we will have some great discussions. I am finishing two books simultaneously, and it has consumed my time, along with personal business, staying in shape, homeschooling, etc. When I do return, I will commit to this thread as it deserves to be.

Thank you. God bless.

We can wait, remain calm and carry on. With the proviso that I, up to this point, think your evidence and theories' are bull-puckie. I love a good scrap. :D
 
Top