"The 'Other' Side of the Slavery Question" Topic

You keep digging in Au pas on the cause of the ACW only being about slavery.

No, not "Only"; principally, primarily, overwhelmingly.

Go on Youtube and you can find many short videos about the causes of the ACW. I stress the plural cause(s). I have two or three books on the causes of the ACW. Not cause but causes.

All of the other causes are minuscule compared to slavery and further, without slavery, none of them would've prompted either secession or war. They are thus peripheral causes.

No serious historian argues that the ACW was caused only by slavery.

I agree and yet we are leaving out the important, second part of this thought which is that no serious historian would argue that in the absence of slavery any of the other causes would or could lead to either secession or war. Thus, the non-slavery causes are only also considered causes because slavery prompted the war.

Your assertion is not sustainable.

If that is true, it is only because I do not maintain that slavery was the only cause of the war, only that it is the primary cause. Perhaps, when I say that the ACW was caused by slavery, you hear/read "only" into that statement?

Although, I should add that of the "other" causes, many historians, including the great Wilfred M. Clay, consider that the growth of white southern nationalism is also important. Thus, if besides slavery, there is an "other" cause which possesses any percentile significance, it is white southern nationalism.

From an earlier thread:

Slavery was not a benign institution, and the slaveholders themselves referred to it as their 'peculiar institution' and not 'slavery.'

To own, or attempt to own, another human being is both reprehensible and monstrous no matter how anyone attempts to paint it. And it caused a murderous civil war. And the object of slavery was to make a profit on the crops the slaves worked.

From The Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson:

'The greatest danger to American survival at midcentury, however, was neither class tension nor ethnic divisioin. Rather it was sectional conflict over the future of slavery.'-7.

'To many Americans, human bondage seemed incompatible with the founding ideals of the republic. If all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights including liberty and the pursuit of happiness, what could justify the enslavement of several millions of these men (and women)? The generation that fought the Revolution abolished slavery in states north of the Mason-Dixon line; the new states north of the Ohio River came into the Union without bondage. South of those boundaries, however, slavery became essential to the region's economy and culture.'-7-8.

'By midcentury this antislavery movement had gone into politics and had begun to polarize the country. Slaveholders did not consider themselves egregious sinners. And they managed to convince most non-slaveholding whites in the South (two-thirds of the white population there) that emancipation would produce economic ruin, social chaos, and racial war. Slavery was not the evil that Yankee fanatics portrayed; it was a positive good, the basis of prosperity, peace, and white supremacy, a necessity to prevent blacks from degenerating into barbarism, crime, and poverty..-8.

The Second Great Awakening of the first third of the 19th century, a 'wave of Protestant revivals' produced abolitionism, and proclaimed that 'the most heinous social sin was slavery.'-8

'…there is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery.'-Senator Robert Hunter of Virginia.

'Instead of an evil,' the institution of slavery was 'a positive good…the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.'-John C Calhoun.

The investment cycle of the southern economy was described by a northerner, as noted by Sir Charles Lyell in his two-volume study in 1846, Second Visit to the United States, 'To sell cotton in order to buy negroes-to make more cotton to buy more negroes, 'ad infinitum' is the aim and direct tendency of all the operations of the thorough going cotton planter.'

Regarding the outlawing of the slave trade by the United States in 1807 and those who wanted to reestablish the slave trade believed as stated by three interesting southern opinions:

'…we are entitled to demand the opening of this trade from an inductrial, political, and constitutional consideration…with cheap negroes we could set the hostile legislation of Congress at defiance. The slave population after supplying the states would overflow into the territories, and nothing could control the natural expansion.'-a delegate to the 1856 commercial convention.

'Slavery is right, and being right there can be no wrong in the natural means of its formation.'-a delegate to the 1858 convention.

'If it is right to buy slaves in Virginia and carry them to New Orleans, why is it not right to buy them in Africa and carry them there?'-William Yancey.

More from The Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James McPherson:

‘The greatest danger to American survival at midcentury, however, was neither class tension nor ethnic division. Rather it was sectional conflict between North and South over the future of slavery. To many Americans, human bondage seemed incompatible with the founding ideals of the republic…The generation that fought the Revolution abolished slavery in states north of the Mason-Dixon line; the new states north of the Ohio River came into the Union without bondage. South of those boundaries, however, slavery became essential to the region's economy and culture.'-7-8.

‘By 1840 slavery was no longer a necessary evil; it was ‘a great moral, social, and political blessing- blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master.'-56.

‘[Slavery] …established the foundation for an upper class of gentlemen to cultivate the arts, literature, hospitality, and public service. It created a far superior society to that of the ‘vulgar, contemptible, counter-jumping' Yankees. Indeed, said Senator Robert MT Hunter of Virginia, ‘there is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery.' ‘Instead of an evil,' said John C. Calhoun in summing up the southern position, slavery was ‘a positive good…the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.'-56.

‘A northerner described the investment cycle of the southern economy: ‘To sell cotton in order to buy negroes-to make more cotton to buy more negroes, ‘ad infinitum.' Is the aim and direct tendency of all the operations of the thorough going cotton planter.'-97.

‘By the later 1850s southern commercial conventions had reached the same conclusion. The merger of this commercial convention movement with a parallel series of planters' conventions in 1854 reflected the trend. Thereafter slave agriculture and its defense became the dominant theme of the conventions. Even De Bow's Review moved in this direction. Though De Bow continued to give lip service to industrialization, his Review devoted more and more space to agriculture, proslavery polemics, and southern nationalism. By 1857 the politicians had pretty well taken over these ‘commercial' conventions. And the main focus of commerce they now advocated was a reopening of the African slave trade.'

‘Federal law had banned this trade since the end of 1807. Smuggling had continued on a small scale after that date; in the 1850s the rising price of slaves produced an increase in this illicit traffic and built up pressure for a repeal of the ban. Political motives also actuated proponents of repeal. Agitation of the question, said one, would give ‘a sort of spite to the North and defiance of their opinions.' A delegate to the 1856 commercial convention insisted that ‘we are entitled to demand the opening of this trade from an industrial, political, and constitutional consideration…With cheap negroes we could set the hostile legislation of Congress at defiance. The slave population after supplying the states would overflow into the territories, and nothing could control its natural expansion.' For some defenders of slavery, logical consistency required a defense of the slave trade as well. ‘Slavery is right,' said a delegate to the 1858 convention, ‘and being right there can be no wrong in the natural means of its formation.'-102

If a slave's life and liberty are as important as a free man's (they are) then a free man's life and liberty are as important as a slave's (they are).

You're leaving out a minor detail from your equation. A slave has no liberty, by definition.

Slavery was characterized by the 1840s as ‘a great moral, social, and political blessing-a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master.'-James McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, 56.

‘…there is not a respectable system of civilization known to history whose foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery.'-Senator Robert TM Hunter of Virginia.
‘Instead of an evil, [slavery was] a positive good…the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.'-John C Calhoun.

[Slaves] ‘can have no other interest but to eat as much and to labor as little as possible.'-Adam Smith.
‘Enslave a man and you destroy his ambition, his enterprise, his capacity. In the constitution of human nature, the desire of bettering one's condition is the mainspring of effort.'-Horace Greeley.

‘To sell cotton in order to buy negroes-to make more cotton to buy more negroes, ‘ad finitum,' is the aim and direct tendency of all the operations of the thorough going cotton planter.'-a northern observer regarding the investment cycle of the southern economy.

‘The slaveholding South is now the controlling power of the world. Cotton, rice, tobacco, and naval stores command the world…No power on earth dares…to make war on cotton. Cotton is king.'-James Hammond, 1858.

Mississippi Congressman LQC Lamar remarked in 1860 desired to ‘plant American liberty with southern institutions upon every inch of American soil.'

‘How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?'-Samuel Johnson on the American revolution.

‘But without slavery there would have been no Black Republicans to threaten the South's way of life, no special southern civilization to defend against Yankee invasion. This paradox plagued southern efforts to define their war aims. In particular, slavery handicapped Confederate foreign policy. The first southern commissioners to Britain reported in May 1861 that ‘the public mind here is entirely opposed to the Government of the Confederate States of America on the question of slavery…The sincerity and universality of this feeling embarrass the Government in dealing with the question of our recognition.' In their explanation of war aims, therefore, the Confederates rarely mentioned slavery except obliquely in reference to northern violations of southern rights. Rather they portrayed the South as fighting for liberty and self-government-blithely unmindful of Samuel Johnson's piquant question about an earlier generation of American rebels: ‘How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?''-McPherson, 311.

+1 to John.

'If it is right to buy slaves in Virginia and carry them to New Orleans, why is it not right to buy them in Africa and carry them there?'-William Yancey.

You know I think Yancey was quite right there, only not in the way he intended it ! 🙂

Bruce Catton said that slavery underlies everything about the war. He was referring to the other factors people are citing here as causes.

As in: states rights is about states having the freedom to pursue runaway property, or to secede in order to preserve slavery, or to spread it to new states, etc. Of course it's not simple until it all leads back to the underlying issue. And slaves were about money. And that is the most underlying cause of them all.

Somebody a hundred comments ago wondered why we never say that the South started the war to preserve slavery. No one commented, but it is an interesting and valid question.

If a slave's liberty is not important, what was the battle cry of freedom shouting about?

Yes, I'm deliberately misunderstanding what you meant. Backatcha.

Had the South not fired on Fort Sumter and remained quiet for the next several months what would the North have done? Do you see any scenario where the North doesn't eventually mobilize against the seceding States? Just curious.

Could Jeff Davis see any? And yet he ordered the guns to fire anyway. Could the SC Convention see any? And yet it voted for secession anyway.

the Confederate leadership ultimately valued independence over preservation of slavery.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said it was safe to assume that no nation's fundamental law (constitute) allowed for the dissolution of that nation. Or words to that effect. The same was just as true of the Confederacy as it was of the Union. Once the Confederate government was created there was no "legal" way for it to end its own existence. Jeff Davis was just as locked into preserving his country, constitution and government as Lincoln was.

'If it is right to buy slaves in Virginia and carry them to New Orleans, why is it not right to buy them in Africa and carry them there?'-William Yancey.

You know I think Yancey was quite right there, only not in the way he intended it !

Just in case anyone misses the point, try it this way: If it is wrong to buy slaves in Africa and carry them to New Orleans, why is it not wrong to buy them in Virginia and carry them there?

Most Southern slave-owners were happy to have the African slave trade shut down, however, as it increased the value of the slaves they already had. Supply and demand.

If a slave's liberty is not important, what was the battle cry of freedom shouting about?

Yes, I'm deliberately misunderstanding what you meant. Backatcha.

A slave has no liberty, and under the scenario you posit of "enlisting" as a musket carrying CSA soldier, would NEVER achieve "liberty" regardless of his service.

The rest of your screed is a total non sequitur.

Have a nice day.

A slave has no liberty, and under the scenario you posit of "enlisting" as a musket carrying CSA soldier, would NEVER achieve "liberty" regardless of his service.

That assumes nothing further changes, a static analysis. We are dealing with a series of counter-factuals (that the war continued and the plan was implemented, etc.) so cannot know, but logic and also much sentiment at the time was that large-scale participation of blacks as soldiers would have a permanent impact on their political status, for the better.

And doc is assuming that things WOULD change. Nothing about the obstinate, stiff necked, hard headed CSA government gives me any hope that it would.
Jeff Davis as a "flexible" man? Please.

Sounds an awful lot like "slavery would have died out anyway."

I'll try again. Is it the War Against Northern Aggression or the War to
Preserve Slavery?

Even though many might not have realized they were fighting to save slavery, they were doing just that. How do you end around that? New name for the conflict blaming the North makes an easy and effective diversion. But it does not change the cloud that hung over everything.

Slavery might very well have died out anyway. Both north and south believed it had to expand or die, which is why the war.

If you KNEW (of course we can't) that slavery would end peacefully, in say 1885, would it be worth a war killing 700,000 to end it 20 years earlier? Hard to say, and reasonable people might have different answers. It isn't like the 13th made everything hunky-dorey, did it?

Political action can fix some problems (and war is a political action) while often creating others. Gradual change is usually more humane.

No, I am not saying slavery was humane. Neither was our bloodiest war. The war ended slavery, and created a lot of other problems. Always difficult to evaluate might-have-beens.

That was the ultimate goal. To preserve slavery. To ensure the survival of a Confederacy whose economy required humans slavery to function.

Certainly this book clears up the "true history" about African American CSA soldiers and also black KKK members! Who knew!?

link

Cool cover too. Depending on your preexisting viewpoint, you could think the black soldier was shaking the white one down for two bits or that this is a depiction of two southern soldiers, one black and one white, struggling together against the Northern machine.

Apparently the author, Lochlainn Seabrook, is

"…Known as the "new Shelby Foote," he is a recipient of the prestigious Jefferson Davis Historical Gold Medal…"

Rewrite all the history books!
Everything we know is wrong!

Your history teachers lied to you! The American Civil War was not fought over slavery; genuine slavery was never practiced in the American South;

The war was certainly fought over slavery in part, more primarily about the expansion of slavery; I have no idea what he means by "genuine slavery", unless it is equivalent to saying "true socialism has never failed because it has never been tried." LOL

Confederate President Jefferson Davis adopted a black child during the War and planned on abolishing slavery nearly a year before the Union did; and U.S. President Abraham Lincoln intended the Emancipation Proclamation to be temporary and spent his entire adult life trying to deport blacks "back to Africa."

Hmmm; might be technically true (I don't know about the Davis claims) but Lincoln hated slavery and was glad to act against it when he could, so the statement is at least very misleading. Lincoln supported the emigration project as did most politicians north and south from all political parties, but so what?

Not good history.

doc, I am a bit shocked!

Are you suggesting that a man who is a recipient of the prestigious Jefferson Davis Historical Gold Medal isn't THE authority on all things African American during the ACW?

No, not "Only"; principally, primarily, overwhelmingly.

Not much of a concession. I think my taking your comments literally is justified.

The North did not go to war to end slavery. The War itself is not about slavery. Lincoln actions during the War to end slavery had everything to do with undermining the South war capacity.

The matter of slavery does shape the South's frame of mind on the matter of secession. Don't deny that at all.

You raise a good question that in the absence of slavery would the South have attempted to secede? Not sure. I could imagine a scenario where the economic interests of the North and South diverge on similar lines without slavery. Shelby Foote in the Ken Burn's series argued that a different way of being American was lost with the South's defeat. The South offered an alternative to the unfettered capitalism that we see immediately following the end of the War. Again, that goes to a deeper cultural divide between the sections than the reality of slavery would suggest.

MB, yes, the southern agrarianism that developed after the war suggests the path not taken, and is a pretty solid critique of "unfettered capitalism."

link

Doc, Marcus, Tortorella – my hat is off to you and your kindred intellectual spirits on this thread for your patience, persistence and politesse.

Good Job!

B

Charge, LOL!

Hi doc & Marcus,
Re the post-ACW revival of the South's agricultural economy, it is interesting to note that the same Northern industrialists who had happily purchased such immense quantities of slave-produced ante-bellum cotton to feed their New England textile mills indeed continued to happily purchase even greater quantities of cotton produced by legions of black share-croppers whose practical economic condition and citizenship status differed relatively little from the days of "King Cotton" on the post-ACW 19th century. Fortunately the institution of a hand-to-mouth subsistence share-cropping labor regime politically enforced and perpetuated by the Ku Klux Klan had freed the slaves, the cotton was still attractively cheap and the American domestic market still sat well-protected behind a substantial tariff barrier.

Wars are fought over money, power and control. Appeals to morality and sentiment are the fig leaves employed to deceive the public.

B

"War is a racket"
—Smedley Butler

Blut, yes, and the sharecropping that exploited blacks AND whites was only LESS BAD (as opposed to BETTER) than slavery. That is a good example of what I said: political action can solve some problems, while leaving or exacerbating or creating others. Not that working in the foundries of Birmingham was much if any better.

"the prestigious Jefferson Davis Historical Gold Medal"

There is actually a Jefferson Davis Historical Gold Medal award? I'm guessing it might be awarded to ineffective or failed administrations so I'm not sure how prestigious it is.

The prestigious Jefferson Davis Historical Gold Medal"

I'm suspecting that the whole thing is a joke. No sane person …. Wait. Never mind.

Putting a question mark at the end of an ad hominem attack is, what does the OFM call it, "the facade of deniability." Perhaps you should have the courage to accept responsibility for your words. Or better yet, keep them to yourself.

Doc is great for "Slavery is horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE, but…..Ya know. It's COMPLICATED!"

So nothing can be both horrible and complicated? Do you even think about what you post?

What question mark?
I think you're a Lost Cause type. Maybe you're in denial about it, but it's evident.

I think HARD!
And then I post.

So think hard about this: was the Gulag, the Soviet prison camp system, a horrible thing? and was it COMPLICATED, given that it took Solzeynitsyn more than a 1000 pages to describe and analyze it?

It is certainly possible to write something shorter that reveals some truths about an evil system -- Sols did it in "Ivan Denisovich" as Stowe did in UNCLE TOM. (And Mary Chesnut's discussion of UTC is quite interesting ; she didn't think he went FAR ENOUGH -- I'll post.) But there is/was far more to both than what a short and powerful story can portray.

I fear that you allow your emotions to dominate when you confront bad things: understandable, but not always helpful.

March 13
Read Uncle Tom's Cabin again. These negro women have a chance here that women have nowhere else. They can redeem themselves – the "impropers" can. They can marry decently, and nothing is remembered against these colored ladies. It is not a nice topic, but Mrs. Stowe revels in it. How delightfully Pharisaic a feeling it must be to rise superior and fancy we are so degraded as to defend and like to live with such degraded creatures around us – such men as Legree and his women.
        The best way to take negroes to your heart is to get as far away from them as possible. As far as I can see, Southern women do all that missionaries could do to prevent and alleviate evils. The social evil (Doc: she means prostitution) has not been suppressed in old England or in New England, in London or in Boston. People in those places expect more virtue from a plantation African than they can insure in practise among themselves with all their own high moral surroundings – light, education, training, and support. Lady Mary Montagu says, "Only men and women at last." "Male and female, created he them," says the Bible. There are cruel, graceful, beautiful mothers of angelic Evas North as well as South, I dare say. The Northern men and women who came here were always hardest, for they expected an African to work and behave as a white man. We do not.
        I have often thought from observation truly that perfect beauty hardens the heart, and as to grace, what so graceful as a cat, a tigress, or a panther. Much love, admiration, worship hardens an idol's heart. It becomes utterly callous and selfish. It expects to receive all and to give nothing. It even likes the excitement of seeing people suffer. I speak now of what I have watched with horror and amazement.
        Topsys I have known, but none that were beaten or ill-used. Evas are mostly in the heaven of Mrs. Stowe's imagination. People can't love things dirty, ugly, and repulsive, simply because they ought to do so, but they can be good to them at a distance; that's easy. You see, I can not rise very high; I can only judge by what I see.

     "I hate slavery. I hate a man who – You say there are no more fallen women on a plantation than in London in proportion to numbers. But what do you say to this – to a magnate who runs a hideous black harem, with its consequences, under the same roof with his lovely white wife and his beautiful and accomplished daughters? He holds his head high and poses as the model of all human virtues to these poor women whom God and the laws have given him. From the height of his awful majesty he scolds and thunders at them as if he never did wrong in his life. Fancy such a man finding his daughter reading Don Juan. 'You with that immoral book!' he would say, and then he would order her out of his sight. You see Mrs. Stowe did not hit the sorest spot. She makes Legree a bachelor."

Somebody a hundred comments ago wondered why we never say that the South started the war to preserve slavery. No one commented, but it is an interesting and valid question.

I think that was me. We should focus on the South's motives for secession and starting the war. It could be egotistical why we now mostly speak of the North's intent because we want to reinforce that the North was the victor. However, that egoism is a landmine. As we can see, it opens up timeline controversies, intent controversies to soothe some living in denial.

Wars are fought over money, power and control. Appeals to morality and sentiment are the fig leaves employed to deceive the public.

And yet, if the negative moral cast is of no consequence, why do nations labeled with this behavior and their sympathizers tirelessly deflect it?

The North did not go to war to end slavery. The War itself is not about slavery. Lincoln actions during the War to end slavery had everything to do with undermining the South war capacity.

Who is saying that the North went to war to end slavery? And yet, the war itself was undoubtedly caused by slavery. Lincoln's actions can be traced for enthusiasts but he did end slavery and no one else. Thus, for a man who didnt want to do it, he sure done did it. I dont know why one of the worst cancers in American society can only be truly ended if the person ending it had the purest heart from the very beginning; very curious indeed.

Charge, yes, more or less. Preventing EXPANSION of slavery was worth the north fighting, so the west would be theirs. Lincoln et al protested vigorously that they had no intent of attacking slavery where it already existed, for the very good reason that doing so would entail a bloody war. But when the war to preserve the union provided an opportunity they were glad to seize it, to destroy all of slavery. Lincoln was GLAD to do it, and all honor to him, but it is not what he went to war about. And I agree with you that purity of heart is not required to be a great man or a great president.

Is it the War Against Northern Aggression or the War to
Preserve Slavery?

The 'official' title is The War of the Rebellion.

The 'official' title is The War of the Rebellion.

Not to be confused with The War of the Ring. :)

Charge, yes, more or less. Preventing EXPANSION of slavery was worth the north fighting, so the west would be theirs. Lincoln et al protested vigorously that they had no intent of attacking slavery where it already existed, for the very good reason that doing so would entail a bloody war. But when the war to preserve the union provided an opportunity they were glad to seize it, to destroy all of slavery. Lincoln was GLAD to do it, and all honor to him, but it is not what he went to war about. And I agree with you that purity of heart is not required to be a great man or a great president.

I agree, for the most part, however: Lincoln, and most of his party, had no intention of interfering with slavery in the states where it existed, NOT because they didn't want to, but because they had no legal power to do so. The war gave Lincoln that power: Military necessity. He worried, however, that once the war ended the courts might rule against him, which is why he supported the 13th Amendment.

Not to be confused with The War of the Ring. :)

There can be no confusing the two, The War of the Ring is less fantasy based based than the Lost Cause.

By way of example consider our award winning author Lochlainn Seabrook's book on the Civil War "Everything You Were Taught About the Civil War is Wrong, Ask a Southerner!":

link

Containing such "true history" nuggets for those who believe theyve been lied to by the government and that everything is about money and power…especially when they need it to be so.

1.Jefferson Davis adopted a Black boy

2.Jefferson Davis freed Southern slaves before the North

3. The U.S. was originally called the Confederate States of America

4. Robert E. Lee was an abolitionist

5. Thousands of Blacks and American Indians owned slaves

6. Lincoln started the Civil War

7. The Northern armies were racially segregated

8. The Southern armies were racially integrated

9. Approximately 500,000 African-Americans fought gallantly for the Confederacy

10. The original Ku Klux Klan had thousands of dedicated Black members

11.True slavery was not practiced in the South

I can picture both Gollum and Sauron reading this book and thinking the author must've been on hallucinogens.

Although several of the Amazon reviews recite phrases like "True history", "open your eyes" and "we've been lied to", one review in particular struck me as a revelation:

I thought it Stunning that shortly before his assassination, Lincoln directed General Benjamin Butler to report to him to discuss the practicalities of Repatriating freed blacks back to Africa, or sending them to the West Indies.

Ironically, it may have been John Wilkes Booth to whom American blacks owe their liberty!

Wow, this is really something. John Wilkes Booth, American hero and friend to black people; they really owe him a debt of gratitude.

The old Maxim about George III, rings true here: All heads rest uneasy when stupid wears the crown.

Don, yes.

Charge, #5 and #7 are true. Depends on what "integrated" means. There is no real evidence that blacks bore arms for the Confederacy, except in very rare circumstances like Levi Miller's. But thousands of blacks marched with Confederate armies, as teamsters and cooks and servants, etc. But of course if that makes Rebel armies integrated, so would Union armies be, same way.

It looks to me (without reading the book, which I have no inclination to do) that the author is cheating on this point, sing "integrated" in one sense for the south and in a different sense for the north.

This seems to me to be a slipshod effort at history with an agenda that is even more obvious than normal. Why are we talking about it?

Here's the story of the Davises taking in a black orphan. I'd never come across the story before but it took 3 minutes of searching.
link

Chesnut's diary records similar instances of humanity. Slavery was an evil system, but decent folks living within might do what they were able to mitigate its worst horrors.

Hey OFM, hey Charge, you know what? It's COMPLICATED.

If the Black regiments that fought in the Union Army had white officers, then by definition they were not segregated.

And it is noteworthy that considerable care was taken in finding qualified white officers to be assigned to the black units. Further, some of the black enlisted men were later commissioned.

Charge, #5 and #7 are true.

And they are also huge revelations. Maybe more blacks were owned and worked near death by blacks?

Maybe Lochlainn Seabrook can write the True History of Middle Earth too? He can point out:

1. Sauron once adopted an 18 year old elfette

2. Sauron wanted to keep everyone in Middle Earth while the elves wanted to ship everyone out to sea.

3. Sauron wanted to put everyone to work while Gondor represented an increase in the welfare state.

4. Sauron never practiced real slavery; anyone who pledged allegiance to him was free to work themselves to death.

5. Sauron was not racist while the free people hated orcs with a passion and discriminated against them

6. Gollum was originally a hobbit

7. Gollum was a small business owner trying to get his property back from a liberal, Marxist wizard who seized it unlawfully

8. Sauron's Mount Doom was Middle Earth's only renewable, green source of energy while the Riders of Rohan's horses were a methane threat to the atmosphere

9. Gondor declared war on Sauron first

10. There are no surviving records proving that Sauron intended to enslave Middle Earth.

11. Smaug the dragon was a victim of the war on the rich

Open your eyes, you have been lied to by Rivendellian and Gondorian elites

This seems to me to be a slipshod effort at history with an agenda that is even more obvious than normal. Why are we talking about it?

You bring up songs, cant I bring up a book?