Myths of American Slavery

by Walter Kennedy

  Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the said William Johnson shall educate, or cause to be educated, and maintain or caused to be maintained, said child until he arrive at the age of twenty-one years.

  E. Turner,

  Speaker of the House of Representatives,

  James Patton,

  Lieutenant-Governor and President of the Senate.

  Approved, February 10, 1820

  George Poindexter, Gov.92

  At the tender age of eleven, William became a free person of color and took the name of the man who had freed him, William Johnson. Obviously, young William took advantage of the education offered him in his manumission act. By the time he was twenty-one years old, he already was a small business owner in Port Gibson, Mississippi, and in Natchez, Mississippi. Very few accounts of the life of a free man of color are as complete as the account left by William Johnson. Johnson made a habit of keeping a daily record of both his business and social life from 1835 until his death in 1851. This record is a gold mine for those who are seeking an understanding of life in the Old South for a free man of color.93 During his life Johnson became a well-known and respected businessman and slaveholder. Johnson's views on subjects such as buying and selling slaves, slave punishment, and runaway slaves are all freely written down.

  As an African-American, Johnson never appeared to regret living and profiting from the system of chattel slavery. Over his lifetime, Johnson owned no less than thirty-one slaves. At his death he owned fifteen slaves, whose value varied from $25 (Old Rose), to $1000 (Jim), for a total valuation of $6,075. Johnson bought his first slave in 1832, and for the next twenty years was the master of numerous slaves. During his life as a slaveholder, it can be determined that he sold three slaves for a profit, six died as his slaves, one ran away, and at least fifteen were living at his Many a bitter tear has been shed by liberals for slaves who are flogged by a white overseer. Yet, as will be shown, even an African-American slaveholder was not beyond using the whip on his wayward slave. Johnson gives the following account of his discovering his slave, Steven, whom he had hired out, in Natchez and not at work:

  Steven was in town and I Knew if he was in town that Early that he must have runaway from Mr. Gregory where I had hired to haul wood in the swamp. It was after Breakfast and I got on my Horse and wrode up the street and I found him in the Back St. near P. Bakers-Gave him a tap or two with my riding whip and then Brot him to my shop and in a few minutes after I got to the shop Mr. Vernon Came to inform me that Steven had took a watch from one of his men and that he had been seen to have it and that he had taken it yesterday as he passed there. I Commenced a Search on his person and I found it in his Coat Pocket. I gave it to Mr. Vernon and was Glad that he Came So Soon for it. I then made him get on a horse and go on down to Mr. Vernons place and there I made his Driver Give him a good Flogging with his Big whip.95

  Johnson was so matter of fact about the two floggings given his wayward slave that in the very next sentence he proceeds to describes a hunting trip he took that very same day. Of course, hunting requires firearms. Another myth is hereby exposed. The fact that an African-American could and did own any form of weapon runs counter to the accepted view of life in the Old South. Yet, Johnson, at numerous times, recounts his adventures and prowess as a sportsman in Mississippi.

  Of the many stories related by Johnson in his diary is the story of how a slave saved the life of his mistress. Johnson informs us that when Wade's residence burned, one child was killed in the fire and the mistress of the house was burned, but her life was saved by her faithful slave.`'fi Thus is shown that the facts of history contradict the accepted myth about Southern slavery as enforced by the victor of the War for Southern Independence.

  Just as Andrew Durnford, a fellow free man of color in Louisiana had done, Johnson, an African-American in Mississippi, hired a white man to oversee his rural holdings.97 Here again we see a nontraditional view of antebellum society. According to liberal historians, white people were loathe to work under the direction of an African-American; yet, we see in these two cases African-American slaveholders hiring white people to work for them. Regardless of whether it was buying slaves, punishing slaves, seeking runaway slaves, or profiting from slave labor, the African-American slaveholder had views very similar to those of white slaveholders in both the North and the South.

  SUMMARY

  "Evidence can be presented to support almost any generalization-favorable or unfavorable-concerning the treatment of slaves."98 That which historian Francis B. Simkins noted to be true in 1959 is just as true today. The one major difference between the present age and 1959 is that the generalization favorable to the South is seldom if ever acknowledged. When discussing the nature of Southern slavery in today's politically correct society, the only view that is accepted is that of mistreatment of slaves in its most vile form and racially based oppression. Anytime researchers or historians attempt to show that in many (if not most) cases slaves were treated more like family members than objects for mistreatment, they are immediately slandered as "defenders of slavery." This cultural bias of the politically correct society is in sharp contrast to the opinion of a noted Southern historian who stated, "Kindliness and patience, frequently extended even to a tolerance of slackness in every concern not vital to Most slaveholders' desire for the good treatment and management of their slave holdings had little to do with a sense of altruism. Rather, they understood that a healthy and happy slave population would translate into more profits. "Masters wished to preserve the health and life of their slaves because a sick Negro was a liability and a dead Negro was worth nothing."»°

  Many Northerners reported on what they considered to be a scandalous situation in which black and white children and adults were in too close proximity. One such observer, Frederick L. Olmsted, noted this close relationship: "Negro women are carrying black and white babies together in their arms; black and white children are playing together; black and white faces are constantly thrust together out of doors, to see the train go by."101 As has been pointed out throughout this work, nineteenth-century Americans firmly believed in the principle of Negro inferiority. Nowhere was this view more strongly held than in the North. Up until the second decade of the nineteenth century, this view supported the system of slavery in the North. After the elimination of Northern slavery, the view of Negro inferiority became the foundation for the numerous laws which denied Northern black citizens equality before the law. Just as true, in the South this view was used to rationalize the institution of slavery and then discriminatory law thereafter. There seems to be two major differences between how the North and the South dealt with the race issue during the nineteenth century. By and large, the North was a white society with only a few black citizens; whereas, in the South, blacks were, in some places, almost one-half of the population. Moreover, in the North very few white people associated with black people. In the South, as Olmsted and others have noted, the relations between black and white citizens were too close to suit the prejudices of Northerners.

  In this chapter the author has demonstrated that slavery was not just a white Southern institution. Indeed, Northerners owned slaves and participated in the African slave trade. He also pointed out that the institution of slavery was not solely a white-versus-black institution. African-Americans also owned black slaves, both in the North and in the South. One final point must be restated, only a small number of Southerners owned slaves.

  When faced with the reality of Northerners owning slaves and Northern participation in the African slave trade, the country is often assured that no general blame should fall upon all Northerners because so few Northerners were involved. When faced with the reality of African-Americans owning slaves, the country is likewise assured that no general blame should fall upon all because so few owned slaves. But when Southerners proclaim that only a few Southerners owned slaves, they are told that the blame for slavery in America rests upon all Southerners, and the Confederate flag should be purged f
rom society to boot. Is this not a prime example of cultural bias? Why are Northern heroes and Northern culture spared condemnation for their association with slavery and the slave trade, while Southern heroes and culture are condemned? Why are African- American slaveholders given a "pass" for their association with the institution of slavery, while Southern slaveholders and non-slaveholders alike are condemned? Is this not an example of cultural bigotry? Why is it that in America, African-American slavery and Northern slavery can be overlooked, but not Southern slavery? Why is it that some in America can praise the movement to end slavery in the North, but condemn that very same movement in the South as "defending slavery?" The point should be clear: In today's politically correct society, the only prejudice that is sanctioned is anti-South prejudice. Liberals love to hate the South, and they will not let a few historical facts get in the way of their preconceived notions.

  MYTH: Southerners who support the notion of a benevolent slaveholding society are merely defending slavery.

  REALITY: There is more to the idea of a benevolent slaveholding society in the Old South than the so-called moonlight and notion of slavery "down South." The retort that by defending the truth about the institution of slavery, one is not defending the institution of slavery is not a twenty-first-century sentiment. As pointed out in Chapter 3, in 1845 Dr. N. L. Rice made the same plea to the people of Ohio when he was defending the view that slavery in itself was not a sin. Dr. Rice was a vocal opponent of slavery, yet, he defended the truth about the institution of slavery while working for its elimination. General Robert E. Lee was so much opposed to slavery that he freed his slaves long before the War for Southern Independence, yet, he fought for his state and the South during the War. President Jefferson Davis believed that slavery would have a natural end and that the slaves had to be educated to make them "fit for freedom and unfit for slavery." Southern historian Francis B. Simkins noted that both good and bad relations existed between slaves and masters in the Old South. If a person is seeking the truth about the institution of slavery in America, why should he ignore the good and only report the negative? Defending the truth about the institution of slavery is not tantamount to defending slavery itself. Unfortunately, with the adoption of the politically correct view about slavery (i.e., the Radical Abolitionists' view), only the negative view is reported, and anyone who strays from the "party" line about slavery is viewed as a "defender of slavery."

  MYTH: The North provided a haven of freedom and of opportunity for African-Americans.

  REALITY: The myth of the North as a land of freedom and opportunity for African-Americans runs opposed to every known fact about race relations in the North at that time. This myth is based upon the modern assumption that slavery was abandoned in the North because it offended Northerners' humanitarian views. Yet, as John Adams pointed out, slavery was eliminated because Northern white workers did not wish to compete with slave labor. It was for the benefit of white workers and not African-Americans that slavery was eliminated in the North. Also, as proven, Northern states spared no effort in preventing an increase in the numbers of free African-American citizens in the North. This fear of increasing numbers of African-Americans in their states became even greater after Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. In a message to Congress in 1862 Lincoln took note of this fear: "But why should emancipation South send free people North? And in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?"1°2 These are just a few examples which prove how inhospitable the people of the North were to their fellow Northerners, Southerners, and even Europeans all noted that even though the North had abandoned slavery, it still clung to the notion of Negro inferiority. With the notion of Negro inferiority firmly ensconced in the psyche of the North, how could one expect African-Americans to be treated other than as second-class citizens?

  While some African-Americans did leave the South for the North, many other free people of color, even some who had the means to leave, stayed in the South. If the North was such a wonderful land of opportunity, and the South was such a land of racist white people, why did the vast majority of free people of color choose to stay in the South? The truth is plain and simple. While both sections of the United States, North and South, had embraced the dogma of Negro inferiority, the South, even with its institution of slavery, was just as appealing and in some cases more appealing as a home for many free people of color. As has been noted, the laws of many Northern states did not allow Negro immigration. No, the North was not a haven for African-Americans, and neither was the South the scourge to the African-American that it has been portrayed.

  MYTH: The existence of the Underground Railroad proves that the people of the North had a strong desire to assist the African- American slaves in the South.

  REALITY: While the existence of the Underground Railroad cannot be denied, one must put its effect on African-Americans into perspective. During the life of the Underground Railroad (approximately forty years), it is estimated that about 75,000 slaves escaped slavery via the Underground Railroad. In just one year alone, the Yankee slave traders brought about 74,000 slaves from Africa to the Americas. If some are going to offer tip unlimited praise for Northerners stealing slave property from the South at a rate of 75,000 in forty years, how much more should they condemn Northerners for stealing Africans from Africa at a rate of 74,000 a year? Granted, while this rate of 74,000 Africans was a peak year for the ever-aggressive Yankee, his trade in Africans existed from 1640 until 1860 or 220 years. Very seldom does one hear about the numhers of Northern African-Americans who were kidnapped by Northerners and sold into slavery "down South" or in South American countries. If the number of free Northern African- Americans who were sold into slavery were deducted from the number of African-Americans freed as a result of the activity of the Underground Railroad, the number of freed African-Americans would be even less than 75,000 in forty years.104 The Underground Railroad stands as a monument to Yankee hypocrisy. While enriching themselves by engaging in the infamous African slave trade for more than two hundred years; while abolishing slavery in a manner which caused slavery and the African-American to disappear in their states; while making their society as inhospitable to free people of color as possible, while making money on slave-grown produce from the South, the same slave-grown produce that they were condemning Southerners for producing with slave labor; Northerners enticed slaves from their Southern masters, the same Southern masters to whom they had sold these slaves, and placed the newly freed slaves into a society which treated them as pariahs.

  MYTH: African-American slaveholders only owned slaves who were related to them in order to free them from slavery to white men.

  REALITY: As shown in this chapter, in most cases, African- Americans owned slaves for the same reason white Americans owned slaves; both in the North and in the South, slaves were owned for the financial benefit of their masters. While there is little doubt that there are some cases in which relatives were bought in order to free family members from slavery, the historical record does not support this theory in a majority of cases. The written records of many free people of color demonstrate the desire for social advancement as the main reason for acquiring slaves. The two Southern states where the largest numbers of free people of color owned slaves were South Carolina and Louisiana. In both cases, we have looked at the record of African-American slave ownership and noted that the need to provide labor was the main objective of slave ownership by African-Americans. Not only have the reasons for slave ownership by African-Americans been demonstrated, it has been demonstrated that African-American slaveholders dealt with their slaves just as their white counterparts had done. Slave punishment, hunting down runaway slaves, and dealing with the long-term care of slaves were just as time-consuming and demanding for the African-American slaveholder as any other slaveholder. In the purchase of slaves and the management of slaves, little difference can be seen in the relationship between master and slave regardless of the color of the master. Despite what the
politically correct comrades maintain, slavery was not solely a white-versus-black institution in the Old South.

  CHAPTER 5

  Slavery Versus Secession

  Secession was no new thing to Mississippians. New Englanders had even talked of it back in the War of 1812. Then came the tariff and the Abolitionists; and embattled Mississippians joined others of the South against the measures and men that threatened the Southland. I

  John K. Bettersworth

  MISSISSIPPI: A History

  As late as 1959, Southern historians such as John K. Bettersworth were insisting that the War for Southern Independence was more than just a war to defend slavery. Nevertheless, with an ever-increasing chorus from the end of that war until the present, the South has been denigrated as the defender of slavery. In 1866, George H. Moore, while discussing the history of slavery in Massachusetts, described the Confederate States of America as the "Slaveholders Confederacy."`-' Having been thoroughly indoctrinated in the victors' view of the South and of the War, most Americans view slavery as the paramount issue of the War for Southern Independence; therefore, every other issue which may have been a factor in the causation of that war is viewed as underpinning the main focus of the War. The victor and his sycophants have established, in the minds of many people, the idea that any issue that is brought forth by Southerners in defense of Southern Independence is done so, ultimately, in an effort to defend slavery. According to America's liberal establishment, State's Rights, strict construction of the Constitution, and secession are issues that have an irretrievable connection with the defense of slavery. This theoretical connection therefore makes secession, ipso facto, an evil political theory.