The Yankee Myths of History

[SouthernByGrace]

The Yankee Myths of History

   There are those of us who can recall the days when the playing of "Dixie" at football games and at the close of the radio broadcast day was commonplace. We can remember when all of the fans in the stadium would jump to their feet and cheer at the playing of our Southern national anthem. What has happened?
 
Michael Grissom, author of Southern by the Grace of God, points out that it was not only the federal government that outlawed the playing of "Dixie" but also weak, spineless, Southern politicians who contributed to its demise. But more to the point - Southerners who have been subjected to generations of Yankee brainwashing have become too docile to stand up for their own rights!
   
How has this occurred? How is it that the very descendants of the greatest fighting force ever to march have become too cowardly to stand up for their own rights? Our leaders, beginning with President Jefferson Davis and continuing with the leaders of subsequent generations,  have warned our people of the danger of allowing Yankees to teach their history to our children. The consequence of allowing Southerners to grow up never having been taught the truth about our history leaves the current generation unprepared to assert its rightful claim to constitutional government.
   
Has any Southerner out there ever looked at a history book your child brings home from school? Even in the case of Georgia History? (which, by the way, has now been officially deleted from the curriculum in almost every school in Georgia, i.e., they don't let them teach Georgia History in Georgia anymore!) Have you ever noticed where those history books were written and published? Certainly not anywhere in the South! My purpose in this topic is to uncover the several myths that the North passes off to our children as absolute fact. Please understand that, given time constraints and limits on space in this forum, only one myth can be covered at a time. I will introduce a new myth for discussion, say... on a weekly basis, to give ample time for discussion.

YANKEE MYTH # 1

Lincoln the Emancipator

   If you want proof of just how successful the Yankee myth has been, just go into a Southern classroom. On the wall you will very likely find a picture of Abraham Lincoln. Inquire of the history teacher and you will find out that somewhere in their education Southern students are required to study if not to memorize Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Now ask the teacher, "Where is your picture of President Jefferson Davis?" Now ask when these Southern children will read or study President Davis' farewell address to the U.S. Senate (which, in my opinion, is a literary masterpiece) or his inaugural address as president of The Confederate States of America. Let's face it - you don't have to go through this exercise - you already know the answers! 
   
The truth is that most of the teachers who teach our children about the "Great Emancipator" have NEVER READ the proclamation! The truth is that Lincoln's so-called Emancipation Proclamation was not designed to free slaves - at all! A reading of the proclamation will show that Lincoln declared free those slaves who were held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." In other words, he declared free those slaves over whom he had no control. That would be like declaring free the slaves being held in Africa. It's a separate country and he had no authority. But what about those slaves in States or portions thereof in which Lincoln had control and supposedly could have declared free? Not a single word is said about these slaves being freed. In fact, the six parishes of Louisiana that were at the time under Yankee control were Specifically EXCLUDED from this great document of freedom, as were  the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia. And what about the States of Kentucky, Maryland, The District of Columbia (the U.S. CAPITAL !) and various other slave holding States in the North???(Remember, in ALL of these areas, slaves were held by NORTHERNERS!) The proclamation actually states that these excepted areas are "left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."    For the Lincoln-lovers and other skeptics, I remind you that the Yankee General Ulysses S. Grant held personal slaves at the beginning of the War. Grant's slaves were eventually set free, but NOT by Lincoln's proclamation, but by the Thirteenth Amendment, passed  more than Three Years AFTER the end of the War!!
   
Anyone still skeptical on this should look up the Emancipation Proclamation and READ it in it's entirety. I personally have a copy of the actual hand written document, the actual one written by Lincoln.

In summary, Lincoln declared free those slaves he had no power to free, and he left in bondage those that he could have set free!!!

So much for the myth of Lincoln as the great emancipator.


Up next week; Honest Abe, the great humanitarian...

[Ga.windbreak]

Some quotes by Mr. Lincoln on this subject and slavery.

"What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet! Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce the Constitution in the rebel States?... Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy; nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South. I view this matter as a practical war measure, to be decided on according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.... I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.... Still, some additional strength would be added in that way to the war, and then, unquestionably, it would weaken the rebels by drawing off their laborers, which is of great importance; but I am not so sure we could do much with the blacks.... I think you should admit that we already have an important principle to rally and unite the people, in the fact that constitutional government is at stake. This is a fundamental idea." ~ Lincoln's reply to a Committee from Religious Denominations of Chicago asking for a Proclamation of Emancipation, on Sept. 13, 1862.

And on slavery:

"... when they [slaveowners] remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives." ~ Lincoln, speaking in support of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

"I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." ~ Lincoln, speaking in regards to slavery and in support of a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to explicitly guarantee slavery.

And last but surely not least the truth of this whole matter of slavery and it's ability to sustain itself given the advances of that time and looking forward to the 20th century.

"Servile labor disappeared because it could not stand the competition of free labor; its profitability sealed [slavery's] doom in the market economy." ~ Ludwig von Mises

  So much for Lincoln, or any other person/government, having anything to do with slavery going down the tubes.

[littlecanoe]

"within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States."

This sentence alone tells what Mr. Lincoln thought of the power of the Fed. 
His presuppositions had to read something like this:
1.  The federal government has the right and responsibility to control each state and territory for the good of the Republic.
2.  Any state or territory that doesn't agree with the federal governments power is in rebellion against that power and therefore subject to whatever means are necessary to control that state or territory.

Someone, anyone, please, show me where this level of power was ever granted to the federal government.  If there is documented evidence that the founding fathers gave the fed this power I will read it, study, consider, pray, and change my stand. 

[Graybeard]

I would say from my understanding of the language in the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers it is exactly OPPOSITE to what they intended.

[williamlayton]

See, that is exactly the problem. I read the same words and come to different conclusions.
In Texas we take Texas history in Middle School and in High School. I was taught the history of the Civil War from an entirely different concept in High School. It was less Southern oriented and more balanced. This was in deep East Texas. It was also during a time when segregation was in place.
There was talk of preparing for desegregation.
I can remember folks ranting against it but saw it coming. There was still a lot of raceism--my grandmother was, as was my mother and most.
I could never understand it.
Blessings
 

[Ga.windbreak]

See, that is exactly the problem. I read the same words and come to different conclusions.
In Texas we take Texas history in Middle School and in High School. I was taught the history of the Civil War from an entirely different concept in High School. It was less Southern oriented and more balanced. This was in deep East Texas. It was also during a time when segregation was in place.
There was talk of preparing for desegregation.
I can remember folks ranting against it but saw it coming. There was still a lot of raceism--my grandmother was, as was my mother and most.
I could never understand it.
Blessings
 

Less Southern orientated? Wow I never was taught that way. In both grade and high I was taught that We, the Southerner was bad and evil, that slavery was wrong, that the North was the good guys who freed the slaves and saved the Union from distruction by the likes of Jeff Davis and RE Lee who were traitors to this country. I even spent 6 mos. in the north in a little town about 35 miles from Boston. That was a real trip for me but after the first 4 or 5 fist fights those boys thought a little differently about us Southerners. Course I got a cracked tooth and a couple of bloody noses from it too but boys will be boys.

[ironfoot]

Davis' farewell address to the U.S. Senate

http://www.wildwestweb.net/cwdocs/davisfarewell.html

"They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do, to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for raising up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother-country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable; for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the equality of footing with white men -- not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths. So stands the compact which binds us together."

The south seceded in an attempt to preserve slavery where it existed, and promote the expansion of slavery into the territories.

[Spanky]

I am a "Yankee" by birth (NY)
I was taught that The Civil War was about slavery.
I know now that slavery wasn't the real issue.
If you asked me to choose sides during the War, I would have chosen to fight with the South.
Not all of us "Yankees" think poorly of Southerners.
It's too bad that things turned out the way they did...



Spanky

[Ga.windbreak]

To those who agree with ironfoots quote of President Davis last speech before the US congress let me point out that the particular paragraph was the 8Th of his speech and the following #9 is much more telling as to the reasoning he took his stand as he did and I quote:

Then, Senators, we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a Government which, thus perverted, threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence and take the hazard. This is done, not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit, but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our duty to transmit unshorn to our children.



"Not even for our own pecuniary benefit" The man was standing up for OUR Bill of Rights and US Constitution as it was/is written. You may call it what you want you may say all manner of things about it but in the end the Bill of Rights and the Constitution stand on their own and you are either for them or are against them. For me and mine I'm for them.

[williamlayton]

You are ignoring the racism of this nation--all of this nation.
It was because of this that the South did as it did--in part I agree but it is a strong part.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

WL,

Are you speaking of racism as it has been seen and understood in our lifetimes?

Can you define the racism that you see in the Confederacy of that day?  I want to understand where you're coming from.

[Ga.windbreak]

You are ignoring the racism of this nation--all of this nation.
It was because of this that the South did as it did--in part I agree but it is a strong part.
Blessings

WL just how in this world do you equate racism with slavery? Was there racism in that day? Yes, your Lincoln was a prime example of a racist of that day. Look at all the laws in the North, of that day, to discourage blacks from living there. "Jim Crow" Northern laws.

As to slavery being racist from the view point of that day, all I can say is, 

Peace!

[SouthernByGrace]

Spanky, Welcome to the forum.
Thanks for your comments. It's good to see people that aren't afraid to take a second look at what they've been taught and realize it doesn't match up with reality. Hope to see more of your posts.

GW, you are absolutely correct, on all counts, again. I would like to expound on the racism thing just a little, if I may:

How many of you out there have ever heard of a social ladder? How about a social circle?

Now, let me relate the two to the War of Northern Aggression. Both phrases were actually coined just prior to that time and relate directly to race relations.
In the North, society viewed the blacks, slave or free, differently than it did in the South. No great news there. But, if you take a closer look, you find out how and why.

Northern culture and society was predominantly money oriented. Rich whites viewed themselves and their standing in society in the form of a "social ladder". That is to say,the white people of the North perceived themselves to be on the highest rung of the ladder and therefor better than blacks, who occupied the lowest level of society there. To find proof of this you only need to look at how many Northern states actually made it ILLEGAL for free blacks to remain in their jurisdiction. You will also find that not one Southern state ever passed such a law. The North's social ladder went something like this, beginning at the top: Rich Whites, Poor Whites, Immigrants, free blacks, then slaves. None were ever considered to be on the same footing as the whites, rich or poor, and they were treated as such.

In Southern culture, society was made up in an entirely different manner. This can be more clearly viewed as a social circle, laying flat. No one could be perceived as being "higher" in society than anyone else, only in a different position in the circle but still on the same footing. In other words, the South's social circle allowed rich whites to be in one position in that circle, followed by slaves and free blacks, and finally by poor whites. This allowed the slave to see himself as better off than a poor white man, and a free black to see himself as better off than a slave. Over all, the slave had more food on the table and more clothes on his back than did the poor white, therefor, he saw himself as better off. A poor white person knew he couldn't be bought or sold like a black slave, but he had the opportunity to be more than he was, making him see himself as better off than a slave. And remember, the rich white plantation owner made up less than 6% of the population. 
Several former slaves were actually quoted during the 1930's and 40's interviews known as the "Ex-Slave Narratives" as saying, "I would much rather be a nigger on one of these big plantations than to be a poor white man."

What better source than the people that lived it.

So, the next time you here the phrase "climbing the social ladder," or "living in the social circle," you'll know where those terms came from and what they mean.

[torpedoman]

Fact of life. The winners write the history books.The Romans described all their enemy's as sub human, the Spanish described the Aztec as savages,(they had a better government and society and architecture superior to Spain) Early Americans described the Indians as savages (altho they welcomed them and helped them survive)

[Dee]

GaWindbreak, on your reply # 8 the nail was hit squarely on the head. Davis was attempting to PRESERVE the rights of the people of the South, rather than break up a nation. He clearly did NOT want to harm anyone, least of all the United States. He was attempting a peaceful withdrawal of the South, with "RIGHTS AGREED TO" INTAC.
The Constitution is CLEARLY what the Government CAN DO, and the Bill of Rights what it CANNOT DO with out due process of law.
Lincoln and company were IGNORING due process of law i.e. the Bill of Rights, and those GIVEN BY GOD, in favor of the Industrialized North's GREED. He was a self-righteous SHILL do the northern business man's bidding. Had the matter gone to trial it would never have stood in front of an honest judge and jury. Lincoln and his chronies knew that.

[Ga.windbreak]

You are so right Dee. In fact it is said in several places that Lincoln did NOT want Davis captured because he and his cabinet well knew that their acts could not stand up to the light of day in the court system. I dare say if Lincoln had not been killed that Jefferson Davis would have been allowed to escape to Cuba with Lincoln heaving a sigh of relief. If I can find this text I'll come back and post it to show the truth of my claim.

One other small detail of Georgia history that I've just uncovered that further proves that Slavery was known to be dying out in the South. Georgia's state Constitution of 1798.

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-588

The Constitution of 1798

Seven of Georgia's constitutions—those of 1777, 1789, 1861, 1865, 1868, 1877, and 1945—were directly associated with war-related periods; the Constitution of 1798 was one of only three documents framed completely under peaceful conditions. It was in effect for sixty-three years. Almost twice as long as the previous version, it contained detailed proscriptive measures. Provisions of the former constitution were clarified, and, in light of the Yazoo land fraud, legislative power was more carefully defined. In retrospect, it seems clear that many of the provisions included in this constitution more properly belonged in the state code. Although the legislature continued to be the dominant branch of government, the language used clearly struck a more realistic balance of power among the branches of state government. The governor would now be popularly elected, and a state supreme court was authorized (though not established until 1846). Until this time Georgia had relied on the work of local courts with no formal system of review, probably in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court's issuing a decision in 1793 unfavorable to the state in Chisholm v. Georgia. Although slavery continued under the 1789 Constitution, the importation of slaves was prohibited after 1798.


Since this law was in effect until the CSA was established it proves to me that in the state of Ga., at least, the wheels for the death of slavery were already in place long before the war was thought about. As well as any arguement that slavery was a reason for having said war to begin with. I would vinture to say that most white Ga. men, who would have been the voters to have voted for this, were well aware that slavery was on its way out and would have NEVER fought for the continunce of something that they had voted to curtail 63 years before.

torpedoman, of course you are right, maybe thats why history never seems to die out as the winners hardly ever get it right and in the case of the war of Northern Aggression they really messed up.

[littlecanoe]

GaWB,

I don't have anything to add except to ask you guys to keep up the posts.  Very enlightening information.

The last paragraph of your last post reminds me of a conversation that I had with a very intelligent lady about 6 months ago.  In spite of all of the evidence for why the southern states seceded, she held firmly to the belief that the aristocracy of the south duped the ignorant and uneducated working class of the south to fight for them.  All one has to do is read a bit and think about the history of the day to realize that the common man was much more educated to the ebb and flow of the national pulse than present man.  Discussion of such issues was a past time.  Also, those men, for the most part, communicated with a complexity that we find more than a bit intimidating.  They were articulate thinkers.  (Broad statement intended).

I couldn't sway her and she, I assume, still holds to the skewed idea that slavery was the root of the war.  This is a fine example of how the dishonest establishing of history keeps the perpetuation of a lie alive for generations.

[SouthernByGrace]

Great post LC. Perfect example of the perpetuation of the Yankee Myth.

[williamlayton]

There are a lot of facts here that you need too looked at in the light of day.
There were enough slaves with the population growth from them too supply slaves from within.
The common folks were encouraged too believe myths and fear of release of slaves into the general population was encouraged.
The South was, until the war, seeking new lands for the use of slavery.
Folks it is just sheer Truth that this war was propagated by greed and fear in the South as it was for greed in the North.
Now I was raised in what is commonly called the Cotton belt in East Texas. Slavery was prevalent during the time of the war. Fear of uprising and carnage from freed slaves was encouraged--though it never happened.
I could tell stories, they would do no good.
The South still lives in some of this fear. The North has seen some of this effect also.
I am out of this conversation as it is taking on tones that I wish too distance myownself from.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

No need to go WL.  I don't sense any tones.  I just see a few guys trying to have an intelligent conversation.

A couple of counterpoints:  If the slaves in the south didn't rise up against the hated white gentry could that not be understood to mean that they didn't hate that white gentry?  It's a fair jump in reasoning.  If true, while slavery was wrong, it might not have been as bad as we've been led to believe.  Again, a broad statement.

If the southern white man was for slavery and this was his cause, how could a man like Lee, who was at the least a very honorable man, fight for such a cause.  I don't remember the exact quote but he is reported to have turned down an appointment by Mr. Lincoln as he had to go back to Virginia and fight for "his country".  Nowhere have I seen that he fought to defend and uphold the institution of slavery.

Also, it could easily be perceived that the south was acting in greed when all that they were doing was responding to intense pressures placed on them by unfair representation.

[moxgrove]

There is always talk of slavery being the end all and be all of the War. There were few who had the money to own slaves and not all slave states seceded. I.E. Maryland. There were socioeconomic factors though. The industrialisation in the north had a lot of low demographic citizens living no better than field slaves in the South. They also had to provide their own food and clothing. I am not an advocate of slavery by any stretch, but there were a few common sense factors that a lot of people ignore. Any farmer will tell you it is stupid to let tools fall into disrepair or abuse their stock. I am not saying it didn't happen, but I really think mistreatment was frowned upon if for no other reason than lowering the value of slaves as property.R.E. Lee hadf already manumitted all the slaves in his family and they were paid servants well before the start of the war. It still comes down to states' rights.

[Ga.windbreak]

While I hate to see anyone leave a post, that is his right, I would also state that WL truly has no idea of what it was really like 148 years ago. As do any of the rest of us. Can you really imagine making everything you wear, growing or hunting everything you eat, no in door plumbing, no TV, no Radio, no music to listen to (unless you sang it or played it), no electric lights, no cars, you either walk or ride a horse/mule, no Windy's, no Cokes, and this is just scratching the top of the surface.

As for slave uprisings I would point out to those of you who aren't as old as I or weren't raised in the deep South that I didn't even know what a locked door was until I was a teen and a late teen (16) at that. My first Stepfather (from NY) had us locking doors in Daytona Beach, Fla. where we lived at the time. As a kid growing up outside of Macon, Ga. the doors to my Uncle's house were never locked and we never had cause to worry. As an 8 year old I would walk to the end of the city bus line to go to Macon on the weekend by myself and it was a 4-5 mile walk one way. So if it was that way in the mid to late 1940's it surely had to be that way in the 1860's. Did bad things happen? I'm sure they must have somewhere but they were not allowed to effect the way we lived. Jeff Davis was asked by a Northerner just why there were no locked doors at his house and wasn't he afraid that the slaves would rise up and kill him and his family? His reply was Why would they do that, they are my family too. I'm much more inclined to believe Jeff Davis than I am someone from today (who lives behind locked doors) claiming that people of that time were afraid of a slave uprising. Maybe some were, but my guess is, that they were few and far between the rest of us.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful of WL in saying these things I just don't believe them to be a true statement of the feelings of that time and he has yet to ever post a link to back up any of his claims. I would also remind you that there were 1/2 million or more free Blacks in the South at that time and as SBG pointed out 3 of whom owned more slaves than any white man of those times.

peace WL

[williamlayton]

I will digress too clear up one point.
It was reported widely by the Southern press that freed slaves would take up arms/go on rampage/rape/burn/murder.
That was the propaganda fed the Southern general poplist.
LC made a comment alluding too a conversation with an older lady. That is not an isolated case/not a case of one persons thoughts.
That was the propganda of the day. She was dead on correct.
I myownself was told of those stories.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Two more links to clear up Yankee myths:

http://www.southernheritage411.com/truehistory.php?th=053 - the battle flag

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm - black slave owners



A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.



The first give you a true reasoning of our Battle flag and its origans while the second gives you a break down in the numbers of slaves owned by both black and white through out the U.S. with particular attention to a black owner in SC. Plus the fact that he had no problems going from slave to free man to slave owner all the while joining a White church and having one son serve in the CAS Army.

[Dee]

There were many blacks that FOUGHT for the South, and did so proudly. But to back up a few steps, one MUST acknowledge that there were COUNTLESS black nannies raising and caring for WHITE children. Some were slaves, and some were not. These black nannies lived IN HOUSE, and were loved by all in the family.
Captain Bob Lee, and Lewis Peacock (a union sympathiser) fought the Uncivil war issues until both died, long AFTER the war ended not 10 miles from my back porch. Point? the war was fought RIGHT HERE where I live also.
Black UPRISINGS? BS! I never heard such talk from the old folks growing up, and it was never mentioned at least in my presence ever, and I have been present for 59 years.
Slaves WHEN OWNED were a valuable asset, and mistreating them, and abusing them would be much like starving a good plow horse. NONSENSICAL!
Lincoln's ATTEMPT thru the slaves was not to produce a "black uprising" but, instead instigate a "black walk-off" of black labor. One must only look back at the progress of the war, and realize, that Mr. Lee was kicking the northern generals butts, on a very regular basis. These men were fighting for their HOMES, and WAY OF LIFE, and their FAMILIES. They were being invaded by those whom cared not for the welfare or safety of any of these.
I am fortunate enough to have all of my life, been interested in the SOUTH, and have read much, and talked much to the old timers here in my home county.
I am also fortunate enough in this discussion to bring up facts I have research in the past, to be posted by such folks as Gawindbreak and SBG.
Opinions are of little value, whether given by the poster himself, or a second hand interview of another, by a poster, when they are in conflict of ACTUAL WRITTEN FACTS.
Attempting to twist facts, and refusal to accept written proof, does not add to the discussion. One can only learn if one can accept that their own perception of an event, has been incorrect.
The truth does not need an apology.

[Ga.windbreak]

Amen to that Dee. And a belated Happy Thankgiving to you and yours, my friend.

Happy belated Thanksgiving to everyone here at Greybeards!

[Dee]

Thanks Gawindbreak. I went to Oklahoma and sat down to dinner with about 25 other Cherokee relatives. It was a very good day. I hope all here had the same.

[SouthernByGrace]

Amen to all you've said today Dee.

When someone refuses to see the truth of a given situation, proof of it being laid out in front of him to see, and he still refuses to see it, he doesn't WANT to see it. I have to agree with you, Dee, and Gw, in that WL has never once shown a single shred of documentation to support his claims. He either doesn't have anything to show, doesn't know how to find it, or it doesn't exist.

Gw and Dee and lc, we're on the same page on this stuff. Anyone needing proof of slave relations with whites need look no further than the former slaves themselves. My own great grandmother wrote about a slave woman on a neighboring plantation who's three sons had just been murdered by Gen. Sherman's troops. She insisted on taking this woman in to help her through a horrible situation. This was normal conduct for these people, even for years before the War.

I'm only 42 years old and nobody in my family ever locked a door until sometime in the late 1990's. We used to actually leave home to go grocery shopping and leave the front door standing wide open, as well as every window in the house (before air conditioning). My mother would streak my backside if she ever heard me call somebody a nigger. Both of my parents used to work in the fields alongside blacks and black women were their nannies. My mother still says to this day that if these people were good enough to feed and nurture them as children, they were absolutely going to be shown the same respect and admiration they gave.

I have read over 100 letters from Union soldiers, writing home and telling their families of how they had been mislead as far as how slaves were treated in the South. They were shocked at how they actually shared friendships with their masters; almost a kinship, as one wrote.

Below are just a few excerpts from the "Ex-Slave Narratives" concerning the relationships of slaves with their masters, in the former slaves' OWN words, in his or her OWN grammar:

Isaam Morgan, Mobile, AL
"Anytime a slave worked overtime or cut mo' wood dan he s'pose to, Massa pay him money for it, 'cause whenever one of us slaves seen somp'n we lak, we did jus lak da white folks does now. Us bought it. Massa never whupped none of his slaves...  No'm none of our slaves never tried to run away. Dey all knowed dey was well off... dey (Yankees) offered me a hoss iffen I would go nawth wid dem, but I jus' couldn't leave de Massa even dough I did want dat hoss mighty bad."

Simon Phillips, AL
"People has da wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My Massa never laid a hand on me da whole time I was wid him... Sometime we loaned da Massa money when he was hard pushed."

Cora Gillam, Litte Rock, AR
" I'll tell you lady, if the rough element from the North had stayed out of the South the trouble of reconstruction would not have happened... they tried to excite the colored against their white friends. The white folks was still kind to them what had been their slaves. They would have helped them get started [in their new lives as freemen]. I know that. But the Yankees didn't leave them nothing to help us get started WITH. I always say that if the South could of been left to adjust itself both white and colored would have been better off."

Jane Georgiana, AL
"Ole Marster dead an' gone an' Ole Mistis too, but I 'members 'em jus' lak dey was, when dey looked atter (after) us whenst we belonged to 'em or dey belong to us, I dunno which it was."
"De times was better fo' de war....  I goes to church and sings and prays, an' when de good Lord teks me, I'se ready to go, en I specs to see Jesus an' Ole Mistis an' Ole Marster when I gits to de he'beny land'!"

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm a helluva lot more inclined to believe these people than some northern "professor" trying to teach something he can't substantiate. These people LIVED it. They were THERE. These are just a very few of the first-hand accounts of these people.
WL, when you can show me this type of evidence to prove your point, I want to see it. Unlike you, I will study it and if I'm proven wrong, I'll tell you I was wrong, in front of God and Country! Opinions mean nothing unless you can show the facts you use to form those opinions.

Y'all have a good day,

DEO VINDICE

[Dee]

One talks of black-white relations in the South. In the fifties my mother being a small lady, had only me due to complications, and so it was myself, my mother, and my Cherokee father. Dad was injured having a hand crushed in a cotton mill in town. We at the time lived in a 2 room house, with no plumbing. My grandparents and Dad, were all share-croppers, and times were very hard for us.
We never went hungry, and many times my baby sitter was a wagon seat while Slim and Shorty pulled the wagon and Dad and Grandpa, harvested corn by hand.
Other times, I played under a cotton wagon, while my mother, and grandmother picked cotton right along side blacks. Until 1956 when I started school I knew little difference, and knew then it was wrong that we were separated at school.
We NEVER locked our doors, even after we moved to town, and as children we went where the day took us as we played. One can dramatize all one wants, but in the fifties I lived it as for relations with the blacks. In the fields, we worked together, ate together, and played together. And if need be, HELPED together. It is the youngsters whom are angry, and the city boys, both white and black, believe the lie.

[SouthernByGrace]

Great personal story, Dee. Great point on the youngsters being angry and believing the lies. I agree with you on that. I see it first-hand myself. The elders definitely do not condone such behavior.