Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[uptower]

I guess not starving to death (and ~30% of the slaves did after being freed) wasn't a good thing?

If they hadn't been made slaves in the first place they wouldn't have starved after being kicked to the kerb, Duh. If the state(s) had made better provisions for transition to freedom that might have been averted. Duh. Because the nation wasn't prepared (or didn't much care about the welfare of) for millions of freed hungry people doesn't mean it was 'good' they had previously been in captivity. Duh.

Like really, duh. Just, duh.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You STILL have yet to acknowledge the fact that it was the south who started the war by firing on US troops on US territory;

From a 2-Volume set entitled Northern Editorials on Secession (1942). This from a Pittsburg newspaper:

 

[uptower]

To give a quick note, the interviews of former slaves about their masters were conducted at the beginning of the New Deal by the WPA and what you’re missing is that many of the same people were interviewed by both white and black interviewers, many of the former slaves who were interviewed by white reporters gave glowing reviews of the former masters but when interviewed by blacks gave much different accounts of the their lives talking about cruelty and family seperation and abuses etc

Which may make them merely unreliable witnesses, big fat liars or victims of Stockholm syndrome - in some cases a single witness could be all three. Or that the black reporters focused more on the negative while white ones felt obliged to report the 'good' side. None of this exonerates the institution of slavery.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

 

[Alizia Tyler]

 

[Alizia Tyler]

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Which may make them merely unreliable witnesses, big fat liars or victims of Stockholm syndrome - in some cases a single witness could be all three. Or that the black reporters focused more on the negative while white ones felt obliged to report the 'good' side. None of this exonerates the institution of slavery.

It doesn’t have to be any of the three necessarily. There is always a tendency to remember ones childhood fondly. Remember these accounts were taken in the 1930s, and most of these former slaves were interviewed in 1935. I could easily see a former slaves (most of them were in their 80s) who were slaves as children and then adults in a south ravaged by war with the economy destroyed and having to compete for labor and wages with formerly middle class whites who were resentful of them seeing slavery as maybe a better deal relative to the post war time period.

I never stated these interviews exonerated slavery, I responded to someone else

 

[Tigerace117]

From a 2-Volume set entitled Northern Editorials on Secession (1942). This from a Pittsburg newspaper:

View attachment 67332311

Oh look, an editorial.....which doesn’t change the fact that it was the south which started the war by shooting at US troops on US soil.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

You STILL have yet to acknowledge the fact that it was the south who started the war by firing on US troops on US territory

Again, what I do is to challenge 'established and conventional narratives', and as you can see by reading a Northern editorial that, obviously, describes what really happened there (or alludes to a different, a fuller, interpretation).

This is not an effort based in my lack of ethics but takes shape in me because I believe it possible to avoid 'intellectual coercion' and try to get out from under its control.

What is your take on the content of that editorial?

 

[uptower]

It doesn’t have to be any of the three necessarily. There is always a tendency to remember ones childhood fondly. Remember these accounts were taken in the 1930s, and most of these former slaves were interviewed in 1935. I could easily see a former slaves (most of them were in their 80s) who were slaves as children and then adults in a south ravaged by war with the economy destroyed and having to compete for labor and wages with formerly middle class whites who were resentful of them seeing slavery as maybe a better deal relative to the post war time period.

I never stated these interviews exonerated slavery, I responded to someone else

And that's fair enough too. I think to build on your point about slavery, it may be that young children were treated better than adults, even by 'fair' masters (and under the cruel ones, sometimes shielded from the worst excesses), and that only as a mature person - or at least a teenager, the general injustice of their condition would have become apparent. Putting myself in their shoes for a moment, in that sense adult memories would be worse than those of kids, even before being freed and going hungry.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

which doesn’t change the fact that it was the south which started the war by shooting at US troops on US soil.

But it shows a larger and a fuller dynamic. And (in my view) shows Northern 'machinations' to get the secessionists to *fire the first shot*.

Do you know the name of the sole casualty of that attack on Sumter?

(It was a mule name 'Lollipop').

 

[Master Debator]

Everything that you say is underpinned by extraordinary zealotry -- and you cannot see yourself.

Everything I say is supported by facts. The South was a slave state. Slaves often had family members sold, murdered and raped right in front of them and the respite from that was brutal field work at threat of a lash from a whip. Those are facts. The picture you paint of gentlemanly slave owners who treated their property like beloved family members is ridiculous, revisionist rhetoric.

You have no choice but to apply the labels you do because any alternative would cause you to examine the structures that you work with -- that *possess* you.

I only keep pointing this out. How it irks you!

I'm not possessed or poisoned or any of the other adjectives you think passes for intellectual retorts. It's just all empty boasts, thin logic and willful avoidance of facts.

 

[Tigerace117]

Again, what I do is to challenge 'established and conventional narratives', and as you can see by reading a Northern editorial that, obviously, describes what really happened there (or alludes to a different, a fuller, interpretation).

This is not an effort based in my lack of ethics but takes shape in me because I believe it possible to avoid 'intellectual coercion' and try to get out from under its control.

What is your take on the content of that editorial?

It’s not a “narrative”; it’s a fact. The south was the one who started the war by firing on US troops on US territory. Lincoln was under no obligation to abandon the fort whatsoever; it is not his fault that the slavers, eager for a war against a foe they saw as cowardly, opened fire.

And nothing in the editorial changes that.

 

[Tigerace117]

But it shows a larger and a fuller dynamic. And (in my view) shows Northern 'machinations' to get the secessionists to *fire the first shot*.

Do you know the name of the sole casualty of that attack on Sumter?

It wasn’t “Northern machinations” in the slightest. Nobody forces the slavers to shoot at US troops on US territory. They chose to do so because they thought the “damnyankee cowards” would be easy to defeat. They got the war they were itching for.....and got crushed.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Everything I say is supported by facts. The South was a slave state. Slaves often had family members sold, murdered and raped right in front of them and the respite from that was brutal field work at threat of a lash from a whip. Those are facts. The picture you paint of gentlemanly slave owners who treated their property like beloved family members is ridiculous, revisionist rhetoric.

No, most Zealous One. I do not deny nor excuse any part of what you point out. I offer a view to a fuller picture and one that is not arrived at through ideological editing and other coercive intellectual processes.

I said, because it is true, that some slave masters and some households treated their slaves in the manner described.

You cannot allow this because zealotry determined that you must not.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

I'm not possessed or poisoned or any of the other adjectives you think passes for intellectual retorts. It's just all empty boasts, thin logic and willful avoidance of facts.

Duly noted . . .

 

[Master Debator]

But it shows a larger and a fuller dynamic. And (in my view) shows Northern 'machinations' to get the secessionists to *fire the first shot*.

Do you know the name of the sole casualty of that attack on Sumter?

(It was a mule name 'Lollipop').

The North's strategic moves to goad the South into acting in a way that justifed war doesn't really change the fact that the South was a slave state that had no right to exist and the South still took the bait anyway. No one was really taking an issue with that bit of nuance. It's the slave apologizing that people are disagreeing with you on.

 

[Master Debator]

No, most Zealous One. I do not deny nor excuse any part of what you point out. I offer a view to a fuller picture and one that is not arrived at through ideological editing and other coercive intellectual processes.

No you don't. You still can't answer me why the South had a right to exist as a slave state that subjugated others but no one had a right to conquer and subjugate them. You don't seem to be able to explain that bit of faulty logic.

I said, because it is true, that some slave masters and some households treated their slaves in the manner described.

Because you say so? Because you hope so? Do you work family members without compensation? Deny them their freedom? Sell off their children? Is that how you treat family?

You cannot allow this because zealotry determined that you must not.

No. It just doesn't make any damn bit of sense.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The North's strategic moves to goad the South into acting in a way that justifed war doesn't really change the fact . . . .

Perhaps not, but it does shed a certain light on the specific purpose of Sumter. And most do not realize it.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Again, what I do is to challenge 'established and conventional narratives', and as you can see by reading a Northern editorial that, obviously, describes what really happened there (or alludes to a different, a fuller, interpretation).

This is not an effort based in my lack of ethics but takes shape in me because I believe it possible to avoid 'intellectual coercion' and try to get out from under its control.

What is your take on the content of that editorial?

Northern Editorials on Secession (2 vols), - Edited by Howard Cecil Perkins - D. Appleton-Century Company - New York & London - 1942
Re-published in 1964 by Peter Smith - Reprint Services Corp - Gloucester, Mass. - 2v

Northern Editorials on Secession contains 495 individual editorials from 199 different newspapers from the years 1860 and 1861.

---

There was also a similar compilation: Southern Editorials on Secession - by Dwight L. Dumond - New York - The Century Co. - 1931

The Southern Editorials on Secession collection consists of 183 individual editorials from the years 1860 and 1861.

---

One could cherry-pick through these two compilations and find just about whatever narrative is desired.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

The North's strategic moves to goad the South into acting in a way that justified war

My assertion is that the North's strategy is one that has been repeated countless times. And when one notices the strategy, and the power-cmplex that carries it out, in the context of fabricated narratives of righteousness, this is what I am referring to.

The function of narratives in our present is what concerns me.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

One could cherry-pick through these two compilations and find just about whatever narrative is desired.

Did you do that? Do you have both these collections of editorials?

Your statement does not offer much here. Are you saying that the Pittsburg editorial -- the description of events in it -- is false?

If it is true, and contains truth-elements, what then? Anything, nothing?

 

[Tigerace117]

My assertion is that the North's strategy is one that has been repeated countless times. And when one notices the strategy, and the power-cmplex that carries it out, in the context of fabricated narratives of righteousness, this is what I am referring to.

The function of narratives in our present is what concerns me.

The North’s “strategy” was to defend a US government fort. They had no obligation to abandon said fort just because the slavers wanted it.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Southern Editorials on Secession collection consists of 183 individual editorials from the years 1860 and 1861.

I found this on-line.

 

[Master Debator]

My assertion is that the North's strategy is one that has been repeated countless times. And when one notices the strategy, and the power-cmplex that carries it out, in the context of fabricated narratives of righteousness, this is what I am referring to.

The function of narratives in our present is what concerns me.

You mean people using specious reasoning to do what they wanted to do all along? Oh wow. What a revelation. Like when Europeans just had to bring civilization to the savages by enslaving them? Or how the natives kept "violating" treaties and thus America needed to confiscate more of their land to protect itself? Or how the South knew the election of Lincoln meant the end of their way of life so they just had to secede? Yea people tell stories to justify doing things they wanted to from the start. That's a human trait as old as language I'm guessing.