Slavery: Paper Tiger of the Politically Correct


by Al Benson Jr.


How much have we all heard in the past couple decades about how our Confederate symbols all represent nothing but slavery, or nazism or oppression or some other such contrived garbage? You would think, after partaking of some of the fulminations of the liberal, lying media, that all slave owners in the South had been greedy, greasy, totally unscrupulous men, that they all had plantations the size of New Jersey, and that they all got their jollies by beating (single-handedly) all of their hundreds of slaves every morning before breakfast and then expecting them to go out and work a sixteen-hour day.


After all, it’s been in books and on television. How many of us have not been treated, in the anti-family government schools, to the writings of Harriet Beecher Stowe, that dabbler in spiritualism, as she produced "Uncle Tom’s Cabin" for our "edification"? Of course she wrote that rather dubious piece before she had ever spent any time in the South, but, hey, what the heck, maybe the "spirits" gave her the information she needed to agitate on something she really knew very little about. And how many of you ever saw "Roots" on the tube? You just know, if you saw it on television, that it has to be true–don’t you? I have actually run into people that told me that because they saw "Roots" on the tube, they just know slavery has to have been like that. Having viewed "Roots" they refuse to be confronted with the facts. As the old outlaw in the John Wayne movie once said "You ought to leave a man his illusions."


Now I have never been a big fan of slavery, but in deference to honesty, I think we need to begin to set the record straight. So let us take a brief look at slavery in the South before the War of Northern Aggression in the hope that we might gain a little insight into what is really a fairly complex subject.


The South, prior to 1830, was far from unanimous in its support for slavery. By the same token, the North was hardly in universal opposition to it. Prominent Southerners like Washington, George Mason, John Tyler, and Robert E. Lee were all opposed to the institution of slavery. There were some abolitionists, (not the flaming, radical breed) that were Southerners.


In his cassette tape series ( I think now you have to get them on MP3) "America–The First 350 Years" Rev. Steve Wilkins gave penetrating insights into the true nature of pre-war slavery in the South. I would recommend Rev. Wilkins’ efforts in this area to anyone that seeks a truer picture of American history than we have been force fed by the professional "historians" of our day. For instance, Rev. Wilkins has informed us that the anti-slavery movement in this country really started in the South, in Tennessee, and not in Massachusetts, as most "historians" inform us. Of the 130 anti-slavery groups in this country TWO THIRDS OF THEM WERE IN THE SOUTH! The South has been gradually moving toward gradual emancipation–not that our current crop of "scholars" will ever bother to mention that fact. It wouldn’t fit into their agenda. Doing such might help to dispel the "Uncle Tom’s Cabin" mythology we’ve been spoon fed for generations–and we can’t have that, now, can we?


Southerners only ended up defending slavery en masse after persistent attacks by Northern abolitionists. The Northern abolitionist radicals, in effect, only ended up making the situation worse in the South that it otherwise would have been had they just kept their big mouths shut. Knowing the rather devious nature of some of their leaders, I would have no trouble believing that this was done on purpose. Agitation, not resolution, was the real name of the game for these turkeys–a little class struggle thrown into the mix! Also, Rev. Wlkins noted in his tapes that, before the War, in much of the South, the churches were not segregated, but they most surely were in the North.


Admittedly, in some states, there were harsh-sounding laws on the books regarding slaves, most especially after the Northern abolitionist rhetoric heated things up starting in the 1830s. These laws, however, were seldom strictly enforced. Contrary to what we’ve been taught, slaves were frequently taught to read and write. There were black preachers, who certainly could not have preached from the Scriptures to any meaningful extent unless they were able to read them.


There were also laws on the books in some states that limited the number of hours per day a slave could be made to work. Owners were required not to mistreat their slaves, but rather to provide adequate care for them. That’s not to say there were not some abuses–sinful human nature being what it is, but such abuses were unlawful. Slave owners that abused their slaves were looked down upon by the community at large. Many slaves were converted to Christianity who would never have been had they been left in Africa, in the heathen domains of the African chieftains who sold them to the slave traders. And, even in slave-holding days, there was a considerable number of free blacks in the South, some of whom owned black slaves themselves.


According to the census of 1850, the total number of slaveholders was 347,525, out of a total white population of around 6 million in slave-holding states. Half of these owned four slaves or less. Many small slave owners worked in the fields, right along with the slaves, doing the same work they did. Those that owned more than 100 slaves numbered less than 1800! Yes folks, you read that right–less than 1800! Historian J. G. Randall noted that: "In speaking therefore of the class known as ‘slave magnates’ one is dealing with a group so small as to be comparable to the millionaires of the following century."


Thus, radical Northern claims of a "huge slave-holding class in the South" simply do not hold water historically–not that this ever bothers the Northern propagandists. So, once again, our "history" books have failed to give us any meaningful truth, seeking rather to perpetuate the myths of Harriet Beecher Stowe and other radical babblers.


So, finally, we got the 13th Amendment, supposedly doing away with slavery. Some have contended that all this amendment really did was to transfer control of the slaves from private ownership to "congressional oversight." In view of today’s monstrous federal welfare programs, now being expanded even further to include illegal aliens, and how much they cost us, such an assessment begins to take on a fresh air of accuracy.


Copyright © 2006-2008 Al Benson, Jr.

 


On The Web: http://www.albensonjr.com/papertiger.shtml