A little scholarship on slavery for those who say the truth must be told.
It can be difficult to convey the notion that humanity or human nature tends to be persistent. It seems at present to be fashionable to assume that slavery made humanity nonexistent, as if the disgraceful institution were so thick and total that it completely pushed out friendship, love, family and community. The reality is more nuanced, both for the owners and the owned.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
People who know even a little history will learn nothing from this very silly piece. He basically covers three myths to prove that slave owners were not so bad after all.
Mr. Matthews says its a “myth” that slaves were bred for profit. And then goes on to say that slaves were encouraged to reproduce to increase the capital of the owner. Huh? But this is a straw man. Very few people actually think that slavery was about living for breeding. Almost everyone knows it was about living to provide cheap labor.
He says it is a “myth” that slavery was destructive of families. And his defense is that sure the sale of a family member disrupted families, but gee, some slaves were married even though living on different plantations and could actually visit each other from time to time. And golly, some slave women were able to adopt children and care for them (until they too were sold). And, oh yeah, some families must have existed because owners used the threat of splitting them up to control them.
He says it is a “myth” that slave life was a misery. Why? Because sometimes slaves were allowed to attend parties. Well alrighty then!
This piece could not be more silly, pointless and shallow but even this author was able to get one thing right . . . “Slavery was horrendous”
LikeLiked by 2 people
You don’t characterize the author’s statements correctly. To illustrate:
You accuse the author of saying it is “a ‘myth’ that slaves were bred for profit.” But that is not what the author said.
His exact words: “One of the most pernicious myths is the argument that planters in the West Indies and the American South engaged in systematic and widespread slave breeding.”
You accuse the author of saying it is “a ‘myth’ that slavery was destructive of families.” But that is not what the author said.
His exact words: “Another troubling myth is the proposition that slavery destroyed the family.”
You accuse the author of saying it is “a ‘myth’ that slave life was a misery.” But that is not what the author said..”
His exact words: “Similarly, it is also believed that due to the brutality of slavery, slaves were unable to enjoy themselves, but nothing could be more fictitious.”
You, Mr. Murphy are dishonest.
LikeLike
“You, Mr. Murphy are dishonest.”
I guess you are too stupid to understand that I accurately summarized the three “myths” that Mr. Matthews set out to debunk. But I did.
YOUR comparisons of my characterizations with the actual words confirms that I did so fairly and honestly. But you are obviously too stupid to understand that you demolished your silly accusations with these comparisons.
I should be angry to be accused of dishonesty because of your stupidity, but how can I be? You really are a dunce and this is really the best you can do, bless your heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “YOUR comparisons of my characterizations with the actual words confirms that I did so fairly and honestly.”
Wrong. But maybe instead of dishonest you are just stupid.
LikeLike
“Wrong.”
No, I am actually 100% correct. I did not distort in ANY way the three myths that the author chose to “debunk.” Your own comparisons of my words and the author’s prove that just as well as I could have done. That you do not understand that – even when it is pointed out for you – is a symptom of profound stupidity.
This is not an atypical exchange with you. You posted a piece. I responded directly to the piece point by point. I did not address you, mention you, or call you any names but while exhibiting an amazing degree of stupidity you throw out personal insults. But, as noted above, that seems to be the limit of your abilities. Too bad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I did not distort in ANY way the three myths that the author chose to ‘debunk.'”
Then it is settled. You are stupid.
LikeLike
I’m sure Paul will answer better than I.
But you just confirmed what he said.
“Another troubling myth is the proposition that slavery destroyed the family.”
What does that mean?
Perhaps, “ a ‘myth’ that slavery was destructive of families.”
Well, any difference?
Are you proposing that slavery was good for Black families, even if sold off and might see each other if the owners allowed?
It has been years since the old racist argument that slavery was good for Blacks. But you managed to revive it.
Bojangles and Steppin’ Fetchit are next to show how happy slaves were in their simple, quaint ways.
Slavery was wrong then, a most people knew it. Money was the reason we kept it up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Another troubling myth is the proposition that slavery destroyed the family.”
Notice the phrase, the family. It clearly refers to “the family” as a social institution. Mr. Murphy errs in assuming that the destruction of some familes is the same as the destruction of the institution. The myth the author debunks is the one that says, in effect: Blacks had families in Africa; when they became slaves in America they weren’t allowed to have families.
RE: “It has been years since the old racist argument that slavery was good for Blacks. But you managed to revive it.”
Now you are being dishonest. Or stupid.
Please read the words of my post carefully and don’t make irresponsible accusations.
LikeLike
“Notice the phrase, the family.”
Uh, nobody can destroy the social institution of “the family.” It is what it is. It appears to be basic human nature to form and maintain them.
The “myth” being debunked was that slaves were not allowed to enjoy the institution of the family. This author says that is false and he gives his reasons. They are laughably nonsensical. The reality is that try as they might to form families, the families of slaves could be – and frequently were – destroyed at the whims of the slave owners.
I see now that Len is either stupid or dishonest too. I am pleased to be in such good company. May I suggest another possibility? It is simple and explains your accusations. My suggestion is this . . . You are a complete dunce.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You can add me to the list of stupid and/or dishonest. I concur with everything you and Len have been writing. When I read the original article, I was thinking to myself, ‘how do these three points change anything about what I think about the abhorrent of slavery’ and the answer is that is doesn’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “The ‘myth’ being debunked was that slaves were not allowed to enjoy the institution of the family.”
Wrong. The myth being debunked is the one the author stated: “Another troubling myth is the proposition that slavery destroyed the family.”
RE: “You are a complete dunce.”
I’m sure that’s true. But even so, you are the one having trouble dealing with the English language.
LikeLike
Several nuggets of the “teach black history” narrative that keeps getting swept under the rug are:
1. The north had slaves
2. There were black slave owners
3. It was blacks who kidnapped and sold slaves in africa to the highest bidder.
4. White people were enslaved by north africans.
5. It stopped 150 years ago and no one today had anything to do with it.
That’s just for starters…
LikeLike
“ It stopped 150 years ago.”
Then why Jim Crow laws in the South and de facto discrimination in the North, both legal and enforced for another century. The Great Migration was in response to the physical dangers in the South.
Laws were set up so Blacks could be arrested for any number of petty crimes, sent to prison and rented out for labor.
Sunset laws ring a bell. Voting. Travel with the Green Book so a Black traveler didn’t get killed by going to a White hotel, restaurant, etc.
All this was illegal after 1965, but it sure didn’t end there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The north had slaves.
Every northern state had abolished slavery by 1804. And they did not do it because they were forced to.
Blacks had slaves.
Yes, there were a few. By the best estimate free blacks “owned” about .5% of those held in bondage. That should be part of any history of slavery which should also note that these slaves were often family members bought to get them out of the hands of others.
Africans sold other Africans into slavery.
Yes, and I think everyone already knows that.
White people were enslaved by North Africans
These “North Africans” were not the same people enslaved in America. They were part of the Muslim disaphora – the Barbary Pirates. But indeed, slavery goes back thousands of years and it ought to be taught as part of any serious history of the “peculiar institution.”
Slavery became illegal 150 years ago.
True, but de facto slavery in various forms continued well into the 20th century. And it was not until the federal government got involved in OUR lifetimes that the petty apartheid practiced in the South became illegal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your response to number 1 is a pure lie and 451000 northern slaves on the 1860 census prove it. The north had slaves up until the Civil War and even during the war in Maryland. Your lies just keep getting more weird every day. I’ll get to the others later.
https://civildiscourse-historyblog.com/blog/2017/1/3/when-did-slavery-really-end-in-the-north
LikeLike
There are some caveats. Yes, there were states that did not secede that had slaves. The vast majority was Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland. (About 415,000 out of your 451,000) Delaware had about 6000 slaves, but most were freed and contracted for a form indentured servitude.
“Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri became buffer zones between the North and the South. All three of these states provided troops to the Confederacy.”
https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/states-which-seceded
So it would be a stretch to call them Northern States.
Sure there are some anomalies that are brought up, but of the nearly 4 million slaves in 1860, very few were in truly Northern states.
But as I have posted numerous times, 1865 is not really the benchmark for ending apartheid. In fact, it was the new starting point after Reconstruction ended in 1877. Then for another 100 years after Emancipation, we treated ex-slaves and their descendants as a second class citizens or worse. They were treated this way by descendants of slave owners and Confederate soldiers who are also long dead and gone and well into our lifetimes. What excuse did folks in the South have for persecuting and prosecuting Blacks, legally and extra-legally until at least 1965? The North was complicit in many ways with job restrictions and contract covenants, especially for real estate. And as we know, and tout for that matter, the Middle Class have most of their net worth, wealth, in houses. Right or wrong, that is our economy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unlike you people, I get my facts straight . . .
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Didn’t completely read your own article did you? It specificallyvstates that northern states passed laws after by 1804 to gradually emancipated backs over time and there were slaves on the 1850 census in Pennsylvania. In addition other states that would be northern union states had slaves for a total of 451000 on the 1860 census. So your article backs up my assertion that the north had slaves up to and during the Civil war.
LikeLike
Sure there was a transition period but the buying and selling of human beings in the north stopped. The laws to get rid of it were all on the books by 1804. None of the three states that had those 451,000 you cite can be fairly called being in the north.
There is a large amount of overlap between the slave states of 1860 and the “Red” states of today. Interesting is it not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maryland is not a Northern State. It is south of the Mason-Dixon line.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maryland was part of the Northern union during the Civil war. They were a secret thorn in Lincolns side.
LikeLike
RE: “Several nuggets of the ‘teach black history’ narrative that keeps getting swept under the rug are…”
I would be content if we could talk about slaves and slave owners as human beings with rich life experiences. But we can’t because someone always insists that we have to talk about slavery as if there were no human beings involved, only puppets in a politically-correct puppet show.
LikeLike
“I would be content if we could talk about slaves and slave owners as human beings with rich life experiences.”
Would you? How nice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…but we can’t because someone always insists that we have to talk about slavery as if there were no human beings involved, only puppets in a politically-correct puppet show.”
You are correct in my view, but not for the reasons I think you are getting at. “Politically correct” is an obvious code for liberal thinking.
My personal opinion is that the left sees the lack of humanity in the Jim Crow era that has left us scratching our heads and wondering why Blacks aren’t as successful as Whites even today. That era solidified for many the inferiority of Blacks for generations. Even the GI bill heavily discriminated where Black veterans could go to college and buy a home. That is pure lack of humanity since the qualifier was literally skin deep. Underneath the skin was of literally no importance.
When I came South to live, I recall the phrase, “everyone knew their place”. This was in 1972.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I find it heartening that even in a state of oppression, people were able to love and find joy.
LikeLike
There are amazing stories of survival in wretched conditions throughout history.
Heartwarming evidence of humanity seeping through incredible odds.
The exceptions do, however, prove the rule. They are notable precisely because they stand out from the norm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I find it heartening that even in a state of oppression, people were able to love and find joy.”
Kind of like in Ukraine today?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The semantics of this piece, and defense of it, are right out of Dr. Semantics playbook.
Slavery sucked for the slaves. Period.
LikeLiked by 1 person