Stacy asks for HELP: Atrocities under slavery?

36 views
Skip to first unread message

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96
to

Friend & foe:

Having flamed with the best of them, I wish to set aside any sectional,
ideological or personal animosities for a moment, in order to post a
sincere request for help regarding the history of slavery in the United
States, particularly in the South during the 19th century.

As I have pointed out before, I first came to this group in search of
information regarding the military history of the War, which had been my
primary area of interest since childhood. However, due to events both
inside and outside the Newsgroups (I'll never forget the first time I saw
the words "Robert E. Lee" and "traitor" used in the same sentence), I
became more and more deeply involved in questions of the politics of
secession and the socio-economics of slavery.

These subjects had never really commanded much of my attention, either in
school or afterwards, and my opinions in these matters were based upon an
early familiarity with various articles in encyclopedias, U.S. history
survey texts and other such general works. In the last six or seven
months, however, with the pre-Olympic media assault upon Georgia's history
and with flame wars on these newsgroups, I have been forced to dig a
little deeper into slavery per se, since outrage over slavery seems to
constitute the essence of the case argued against the South. Catton,
Olmstead, Toqueville, Genovese and D'Souza are among the sources I've
consulted, as well as refreshing myself from articles in my several sets
of encyclopediae.

But in all of this I keep running into a certain conception of slavery the
source of which I have been unable to determine. It seems like there is
some major and influential book about slavery that I've never read or even
heard of, or as if -- in the 15-20 years since I left school -- the texts
have been rewritten in regard to slavery. Most of this new view is
centered on inhumane atrocities which are alleged to have been frequent,
even mundane, occurences in the antebellum South: Slave women raped with
impunity on a nightly basis, the men castrated, slave family life
systematically undermined, women and children purposefully sold away from
their husbands and fathers, religious activity banned or suppressed,
slaves bred like cattle on special plantations devoted to such practices,
runaways hunted down and tortured or killed, and the most brutal methods
of oppressive generally prevailing throughout Dixie.

In studying such matters in "Roll, Jordan, Roll" and other works, and in
making observations based on a synthesis of all I've read on this subject,
I find no real justification for this "Holocaust" view of slavery.
Genovese, in his "Roll Jordan Roll" chapter titled "Miscegenation" comes
to conclusion that sexual involvement between white and black under Old
South slavery was rare -- certainly a single-digit percentage. Further,
white-black relationships were more frequent in towns and cities than on
farms and plantations, and if miscegenation was uncommon, the use of
actual physical force in its accomplishment was even more rare. In other
words, most sexual relations between master and slave (or mistress-slave
or overseer-slave or relations between whites and free blacks) was
consensual.

From D'Souza's citation of "Time On the Cross," I get the impression that
the breakup of families by masters was never a commonality. D'Souza says
that some two-thirds to three-quarters of all slave marriages were never
disrupted by sale of a spouse. And I suppose, then, if family dissolution
and rape in the Old South were less frequent than South-haters have
generally claimed, then we might suspect that whippings, mutilations and
other inhumanities were also more rare than such propagandists suggest.
And I might also add that a passing knowledge of human nature tells me
that, had such brutality been commonplace, that uprisings in the South
would have amounted to more than Denmark Vesey, Nat Turner and the
abortive John Brown raid. Slaves or not, four million people -- sometimes
far outnumbering their masters on a local basis -- would not have put up
with abuses like that had they been routine.

With all this terrorism, it's amazing that anybody would ever find time to
pick the cotton.

But, as I've said, it seems there are people -- politicians, playwrights,
journalists, scholars -- who have access to some popular account of
slavery which contradict the books I've been reading, and it is apparently
a book which lays great emphasis on this "slavery as the Holocaust" theme,
for I hear the same charges repeated over and over from a variety of
sources. If someone could give me the title of this book -- which I must
have overlooked somehow -- I would be greatly obliged.

I do not mean to touch upon the question of whether people should be
subject to being bought and sold, or to get into some labyrinthine
elaboration of the psychological trauma induced by "paternalism," and I
know that people sometimes do bad things to other people, but I merely
want to find out where I can get my hands on this one book.

Thanks for your help -- please reply to author by e-mail if possible.

Robert Stacy McCain
Rome GA

jcr...@epix.net

unread,
Aug 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/28/96
to

In Article<4vuaue$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, <rstac...@aol.com> writes:
> From: rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229)

> Friend & foe:
>
< snip >

> But, as I've said, it seems there are people -- politicians, playwrights,
> journalists, scholars -- who have access to some popular account of
> slavery which contradict the books I've been reading, and it is apparently
> a book which lays great emphasis on this "slavery as the Holocaust" theme,
> for I hear the same charges repeated over and over from a variety of
> sources. If someone could give me the title of this book -- which I must
> have overlooked somehow -- I would be greatly obliged.
>
> I do not mean to touch upon the question of whether people should be
> subject to being bought and sold, or to get into some labyrinthine
> elaboration of the psychological trauma induced by "paternalism," and I
> know that people sometimes do bad things to other people, but I merely
> want to find out where I can get my hands on this one book.
>
> Thanks for your help -- please reply to author by e-mail if possible.
>
> Robert Stacy McCain
> Rome GA


The book is called _Uncle Tom's Cabin_.


zolton

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

I'm afraid I don't know the book you are referring to. But
while I'm here I figured I'd mention a line of thought that
has been bothering me.
For the life of me I can't figure out why people are so
concerned with comparing suffering (ie: Slavery versus the
Holocaust). It's not like the sheer level of suffering
inflicted upon a given group increases or diminishes the
standing of their position. Okay, American slavery may not
be a tale awash in blood but what does that matter? The
basic evil of the whole shebang remains whether or not the
most lurid aspects of the worst case scenario are true or
no. It doesn't matter if the situation was as bad as
potrayed, it was still involved a basic violation of human
rights.
The defense of the Confedrate cause can only be hurt by
playing this game.

FYI: I find the traditional idea of cringing, battered and
otherwise thoroughly cowed slaves little more than an insult
to the people who could wrest as much from a pretty crappy
situation as the slaves appearantly did.


Linda Teasley

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

Lynn Berkowitz (lynn...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

[bibliography snipped]

: Mr. McCain would probably also like a recommendation of a book written
: by a "happy darkey", I have to admit I have never come across such a
: work.

Neither have I.

The fact that slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write
: may be a contributing factor to the paucity of this type of
: literature.

Perhaps (although many of them learned anyhow). I think a bigger
reason is that no one who writes his autobiography ever intentionally
presents himself as Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm.

Linda "where's the interest in that?" Teasley
--
Five pelican bedecked battle flags began to flap. . . three thousand
men stepped off on the left foot. With strict cadence, ninety paces per
minute, a forest of burnished steel paraded up the hill.
Winchester --- 25 May 1862

Lynn Berkowitz

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

On 27 Aug 1996 04:17:18 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

:Friend & foe:


:
:Having flamed with the best of them, I wish to set aside any sectional,
:ideological or personal animosities for a moment, in order to post a
:sincere request for help regarding the history of slavery in the United
:States, particularly in the South during the 19th century.

:

:But in all of this I keep running into a certain conception of slavery the


:source of which I have been unable to determine. It seems like there is
:some major and influential book about slavery that I've never read or even
:heard of, or as if -- in the 15-20 years since I left school -- the texts
:have been rewritten in regard to slavery. Most of this new view is
:centered on inhumane atrocities which are alleged to have been frequent,
:even mundane, occurences in the antebellum South: Slave women raped with
:impunity on a nightly basis, the men castrated, slave family life
:systematically undermined, women and children purposefully sold away from
:their husbands and fathers, religious activity banned or suppressed,
:slaves bred like cattle on special plantations devoted to such practices,
:runaways hunted down and tortured or killed, and the most brutal methods
:of oppressive generally prevailing throughout Dixie.

:
Someone mentioned "Uncle Tom's Cabin", this is, of course, a work of
fiction, although wildly popular at the time of its publication, made
into numerous stage plays and musicals (seeing as how motion pictures
and television miniseries were not yet invented) yet its inaccuracies
and bias were obvious from the start.

For firsthand accounts of the paternalistic and benevolent nature of
the institution of slavery, I recommend to Mr. McCain the following:

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF FREDERICK DOUGLASS
TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE, the autobiography of Solomon Northrop (Northrop
was a free Black man from Saratoga, New York, kidnapped and sold into
slavery as an adult, rescued 12 years later from a Louisiana
plantation) (1854)
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAMS WELLS BROWN (1850's)
THE KIDNAPPED AND THE RANSOMED by Kate Pickard (1856)
WILLIAM JOHNSON'S NATCHEZ--THE DIARY OF A FREE BLACK

There is, of course, a tremendous body of literature consisting of
freed-slave narratives, some of which are undeniably accurate and
other unreliable. The four listed above are the best documented
(Northrop's is the most objective and accurate account, since he was
an educated and literate adult at the time of his abduction). The "as
told to" atrocity stories that appeared regularly in the abolitionist
press of the day are less well documented.)

I'm at work now but I have a more comprehensive bibliography at home.

Mr. McCain would probably also like a recommendation of a book written
by a "happy darkey", I have to admit I have never come across such a

work. The fact that slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write


may be a contributing factor to the paucity of this type of
literature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com

Justin M Sanders

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:

> Having flamed with the best of them, I wish to set aside any sectional,
> ideological or personal animosities for a moment, in order to post a
> sincere request for help regarding the history of slavery in the United
> States, particularly in the South during the 19th century.

I will not be able to provide the information which Mr. McCain
specifically requested, namely, the one book which gives the distorted
view of slavery which he discusses. Rather than recommend works which
give such a distorted view, perhaps it would be better to give works which
represent some of the best scholarship on the subject of slavery.

Mr. McCain has already mentioned Genovese's "Roll, Jordan, Roll." I have
found Peter Kolchin's, "American Slavery, 1619-1877" to be a concise
review of the subject with an excellent bibliographic essay at the end.
Kenneth Stampp's, "The Peculiar Institution" is another, older, but solid
general history of the subject.

All of these books (and a couple of others) are mentioned in the Suggested
Reading List which is posted along with the FAQ each month.
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/news.answers/civil-war-usa/reading-list

Mark Pitcavage's Alternate Reading List contains the titles of several
more valuable works. It (and the FAQ Reading List, too) is readily
available at the American Civil War Homepage
http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/pub/~hoemann/cwarhp.html

As I have stated, none of these works will provide the distorted view that
was requested, but they will provide some of the best and most thoughtful
analysis that historians have to offer on the subject.

--
Justin M. Sanders "I shot an arrow into the air. It fell
Dept. of Physics to earth I know not where." --Henry
Univ. of South Alabama Wadsworth Longfellow confessing
jsan...@jaguar1.usouthal.edu to a sad ignorance of ballistics.

Maury

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

In article <50437i$2...@panix2.panix.com>, l...@panix.com says...

>
>Lynn Berkowitz (lynn...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> [bibliography snipped]
>
>: Mr. McCain would probably also like a recommendation of a book written

>: by a "happy darkey", I have to admit I have never come across such a
>: work.
>
> Neither have I.

>
> The fact that slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write
>: may be a contributing factor to the paucity of this type of
>: literature.


Blacks, freed and slave, learned to read. Some learned to write
and some were taught by their masters. I can site one famous person,
Frederick Douglass was taught to read and write by his master's
wife. It's in his Frederick Douglass' autobiography.

Beyond "reading" there are other skills for communication.
I don't recall that the native Americans read and wrote either,
but regarding blacks, they were often the first to hear of the
latest news because the trusted ones were sent to fetch the mail
and in doing so they heard any gossip by whites on matters and
thereby they could pass that (singing I Heard It Through
The Grape Vine) informatiom amongst themselves quicker than the
master would get his hardcopy snail mail. -- Maury


.


RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to

In article <502u7q$16...@cheatum.frontiernet.net>, zolton
<zol...@pop3.frontiernet.com> writes:

> It's not like the sheer level of suffering
>inflicted upon a given group increases or diminishes the
>standing of their position.>

I'm not saying that, but there are those who say that the level of
African-American slaves in North America suffering as compared to, say
Native American slaves in Central America, SHOULD affect our consideration
of African-Americans as a group. Others would say that Old South slavery's
comparability with various other oppressive systems is fundamental to our
attitudes toward manifestations of Confederate heritage, inter alia, the
battle flag.
Still others (some of whom have used this argument sneeringly toward me
for even suggesting a comparison) would say that the exploitation,
oppression and alienation of the slave under the Old South regime was so
infinitely greater than the exploitation, oppression and alienation of the
proletariat under the industrial capitalist regime as to be beyond
reckoning.
And yet these same people bear little apparent hostility toward Brazil,
Cuba or other New World slave nations, nor towards the active agents of
enslavement in Africa (Arabs, Jews, Europeans, the Africans themselves),
and even less toward the trans-Atlantic slave traders (among them the
Yankees). All the hostility toward slavery, in other words, is focused
upon the condition of 4 million slaves in the United States in 1860. Thus
-- if, as the Yankees claim, a Norhtern humanitarian concern for the slave
was the cause for the war -- it seems we should be concerned as to how the
condition of those slaves would be comparable to other oppressed peoples
before, during and after the war. If some comparably oppressive situation
could be discovered, either at home or abroad, certainly the U.S. should,
by the principles of the "irrepressible conflict," declare war upon the
oppressors and end the oppression.

>Okay, American slavery may not
>be a tale awash in blood but what does that matter?

Oh, it does indeed, if the conditions of slavery were so intolerable as to
render the great-great-grandchildren of the freedmen necessitous of
special consideration according to their ancestry (and some argue that it
does), then an oppression factor becomes necessary, that these claims to
consideration may be judged against any potential competing claims. And if
slavery were sin, does it not follow that the slaveholders are now
roasting in the fires of hell?

>The
>basic evil of the whole shebang remains whether or not the
>most lurid aspects of the worst case scenario are true or
>no.>

Yes, but "the most lurid aspects of the worst case scenario" are
frequently cited by political leaders (former Atlanta mayor Maynard
Jackson) and social leaders (major writers at the New York Times, et al.)
in reference to various latter-day political questions. If it is for those
lurid aspects which slavery must be condemned, the prevalence of those
aspects should be determined. And if, as you suggest, it is "the basic
evil of the whole shebang" which we condemn, let us ask: Evil how?

> It doesn't matter if the situation was as bad as
>potrayed, it was still involved a basic violation of human
>rights.>

Human rights, as defined by whom? I do not think that the Islamic Africans
who sold their Kaffir slaves to the European traders considered that the
Kaffir had any more human rights than would have Chief Justice Taney. And
if the vendor recognizes no rights for this person, nor does the purchase,
his Constitution or his Chief Justice, then who is the agent who may
justly infer upon such rights upon the slave? We are at the baseline of
political theory, you see, and must decide who is the best custodian of
the slave's interest.
The problem, you see, is that slavery as an institution rubs roughly
against some basic premises of republican government, contrasting the
right of liberty to the right of property. It is only to egalitarian or
collectivist social theory, really, that we may turn to find a critique of
slavery. It was not subject to criticism by the Constitution of 1860,
which recognized it. Nor is slavery condemned, per se, in Judeo-Christian
scripture. So by the basic political and religious tenets of Americans in
1860, the existence of slavery should have been no evil, had it not been
for the egalitarian phraseology of the Declaration of Independence. The
Declaration, thus, is in direct conflict with the Constitution and
Judeo-Christian scripture.
Studying the rise of abolitionism after the Missouri Compromise, I think
we should be able to see that it was in mimickry of the British abolition
of colonial slavery that the American fanatics came to their position.

> The defense of the Confedrate cause can only be hurt by
>playing this game. >

Who is playing this game? I am seeking information. By the way, this
inquiry was prompted by a specific event of which you are unaware. I have
since discovered that "racial sensitivity trainers" employed by the U.S.
government in the 1960s and '70s were supplied with a great deal of
Marxist and neo-abolitionist literature on the history of slavery for
training purposes, leading me to suspect that our own government
(unwittingly?) helped spread this "slavery as the Holocaust" mythos. The
fellow I was querying about the source of his opinions, upon my asking if
he had read Fogel and Engerman, shot back cleverly with: "Have you read
James Baldwin?" AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!

>FYI: I find the traditional idea of cringing, battered and
>otherwise thoroughly cowed slaves little more than an insult
>to the people who could wrest as much from a pretty crappy
>situation as the slaves appearantly did.

Ditto. To imagine that slaves would be mistreated so badly and never raise
more than a few local rebellions, one must think them quite cowed indeed.
But as both slave and master were generally Christian in faith, one must
suppose the master a very bad Christian, and the slave a very good
Christian, in order for such cruelty and docility to exist within the same
system.

Robert Stacy McCain

jcr...@epix.net

unread,
Aug 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/29/96
to


> Subject: Re: Stacy asks for HELP: Atrocities under slavery?


>
> On 27 Aug 1996 04:17:18 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>

> :Friend & foe:


> :
> :Having flamed with the best of them, I wish to set aside any sectional,
> :ideological or personal animosities for a moment, in order to post a
> :sincere request for help regarding the history of slavery in the United
> :States, particularly in the South during the 19th century.

> :
>
> :But in all of this I keep running into a certain conception of slavery the


> :source of which I have been unable to determine. It seems like there is
> :some major and influential book about slavery that I've never read or even
> :heard of, or as if -- in the 15-20 years since I left school -- the texts
> :have been rewritten in regard to slavery. Most of this new view is
> :centered on inhumane atrocities which are alleged to have been frequent,
> :even mundane, occurences in the antebellum South: Slave women raped with
> :impunity on a nightly basis, the men castrated, slave family life
> :systematically undermined, women and children purposefully sold away from
> :their husbands and fathers, religious activity banned or suppressed,
> :slaves bred like cattle on special plantations devoted to such practices,
> :runaways hunted down and tortured or killed, and the most brutal methods
> :of oppressive generally prevailing throughout Dixie.

> :
> Someone mentioned "Uncle Tom's Cabin", this is, of course, a work of
> fiction, although wildly popular at the time of its publication, made
> into numerous stage plays and musicals (seeing as how motion pictures
> and television miniseries were not yet invented) yet its inaccuracies
> and bias were obvious from the start.
>

< other referances snipped >

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com


I mentioned "Uncle Tom's Cabin" because, even though it was fiction,
this book did more to shape public opinion towards slavery than any
other book before or since. Prior to the CW few northerners had seen
slavery first hand. While most were generally opposed to it or at
least found it distasteful they were not nearly ready to
abolish it. Slavery, as portrayed in "Uncle Tom's Cabin", suddenly
became so morally revolting that the abolitionism became a religioun
unto itself. I can think of no other piece of propoganda in
our nation's history as successful as that one book.

The legacy of this book can still be seen today. If you read about
slavery in high school textbooks or watch any of the several
CW mini-series on TV you will see material taken straight from
this book. Even "Roots" was little more than a retelling of this same general
theme.

Please understand that I am in no way defending slavery or
trying to excuse it as some would seek to do. I would hope everyone
in this NG has read at least some of the resources cited. My wish is
that we could rid ourselves of the popular history views on slavery by
replacing "Uncle Tom" with the stories of real slaves. However, since
Mr. Stacy asked for the "major influential book on slavery" I gave it
to him.

Joel


RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

In article <32256ead...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, lynn...@ix.netcom.com
(Lynn Berkowitz) writes:

>For firsthand accounts of the paternalistic and benevolent nature of
>the institution of slavery, I recommend to Mr. McCain the following:
>
>AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF FREDERICK DOUGLASS

Well, DUH! As Douglass was from Maryland, and as Maryland remained in the
Union, this is hardly an indictment of the Confederate states. And as
Douglass was a leading abolitionist writer, it certainly behooved him to
paint slavery in the worst possible light, didn't it? Just as it behooves
me to make the worst of the oppressive yoke of Yankee bondange which binds
my homeland involuntarily to a nation that is viciously biased against me,
right? (See how this works?)

>TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE, the autobiography of Solomon Northrop (Northrop
>was a free Black man from Saratoga, New York, kidnapped and sold into
>slavery as an adult, rescued 12 years later from a Louisiana
>plantation) (1854)

Ah, excuse me, but hadn't New Yorkers and New Jerseyites been quite active
in selling their OWN SLAVES to the South but a few decades prior to the
publication of this? Indeed, did not New Jersey continue to sell its black
"convicts" at auction in New Orleans right up until the South seceded?
While I have never read Northrop's account, nor do I know whether his
account is substantiated by documentary evidence (census data or
plantation records, for instance), if his account is true, he was the
victim of a crime, since I know of no U.S. law which made it legal to make
a slave of a free man. Still, his account has an interesting publication
date -- how coincidental that it should be published at the height of
outrage over the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. I suspect that, whatever element of
truth if any it contains, the story might properly be classified, like
Douglass' work, as Yankee abolitionist propaganda. Remember, these folks
wanted to sell books, and "abolitionist" was a full-time job for some
people.

>AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAMS WELLS BROWN (1850's)
>THE KIDNAPPED AND THE RANSOMED by Kate Pickard (1856)
>WILLIAM JOHNSON'S NATCHEZ--THE DIARY OF A FREE BLACK
>

These titles are unfamiliar to me, but again -- any writing about slavery
published in the North during the 1850s should not be accepted as
unbiased, nor even factual, until checked against documentary evidence.
This would be like reading a 1950s-era John Birch Society tract about
conditions in China or the Soviet Union and not verifying it against the
record or, more appropriately, this would be like reading Hitler's lurid
claims in "Mein Kampf" and supposing they were true. Get it, Lynne? You're
reading from "The Protocols of the Learned Elder of Dixie" here.

How idiotic that the devotees of Boasian relativism extend their dogmatic
cultural neutrality to all but the putative oppressors. Don't you see that
there was an intense propaganda campaign being directed against the South?
Was there not an ongoing struggle for control of the central government?
Are political parties not prone to distorting the truth to gain power? Do
you suppose that "media bias" is a recent phenomenon? Are we to supposed
that no escaped slave, free black or traveling Yankee ever fudged a little
bit to substantiate the prejudices of his audience? Was there never any
"helpful" abolitionist editing of these sagas to reflect unfavorably on
the South?

Am I the only one who brings a cynical attitude to my historic reading? My
goodness, people, I work at a newspaper and I KNOW how a propaganda
campaign operates. I KNOW how facts are omitted and distorted to generate
the desired public response. Look at the current debates over taxes,
affirmative action, welfare -- either side can produce the facts and
"spin" to defend its position. Does anyone believe that the policy
initiatives of either party is designed for any other purpose than to win
elections and placate various interest groups within the party? Have you
taken leave of your senses?

Wake up and smell the agitprop, people. Imagine what you would say about
me if I brought such a gullible naivete to my readings of the pro-slavery
argument. Are you truly so blind as to be unaware of the bias in these
sources?

Robert Stacy McCain
Professional cynic
Rome, GA

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

In article <32256ead...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, lynn...@ix.netcom.com
(Lynn Berkowitz) writes:
>
>Mr. McCain would probably also like a recommendation of a book written
>by a "happy darkey", I have to admit I have never come across such a
>work. The fact that slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write

>may be a contributing factor to the paucity of this type of
>literature.

Well, well, if we don't have the old "ignorant redneck racist"
stereotype cropping up again. Does Ms. Berkowitz imagine that I subscribe
to some rose-tinted moonlight-and-magnolia picture of the Old South? Or
does she think that I am so stupid as not to realize that the slave
generally had a hard lot in life? Nor am I unaware of the irony that
people were classified as chattel in a nation founded upon a basically
egalitarian doctrine.
I have interviewed former sharecroppers and tenant farmers and am
myself the son of a land-poor Depression-era Southern farm boy who was
only too happy to escape the tedium and drudgery of mule-powered
agriculture.
For all their suffering, however, these people usually are able to
remember happy times from their experiences and to reflect that no one was
really to blame for their condition. Even black people talking about the
days of Jim Crow, without defending segregation, will often say: "That's
just the way things were. We took it for granted." I have interviewed one
well-known woman, who participated in lunch-counter sit-ins with Lonnie
King, who speaks with great pride of the teachers at her all-black school
and of her parents' status within the segregated black community. She has
little or no prejudice or animosity toward white people, probably less
than many younger black people do. But, despite her efforts to achieve
racial equality in the South, some "new jack" types would probably call
this courageous lady an "Aunt Thomasina" -- why? Because she doesn't hate
white people enough to suit their tastes.
So it is with the latter-day neo-abolitionists: Anyone who does not
speak with the utmost vituperation toward the antebellum gentry is
immediately lampooned as a nostalgic romantic, an ill-read ignoramous or
an outright racist. That such people should be allowed to parade
themselves as paragons of color-blind social virtue is a shame. And that
no one has seen through this humanitarian pose is evidence of the extent
of indoctrination which is possible under the regime of political
correctness.
Remember: Slaveholders were human beings, too, and were furthermore
citizens whose rights under the Constitution were far more explicit than
any egalitarian claim which could be advanced on behalf of their servants.
The slaveholders always contended that freedom for the slaves would be a
very difficult problem in a nation where racial attitudes were very rigid,
and so it has proven.
It was scarcely a question, in 1860, of whether slavery in North
America should have been instituted 200-plus years earlier. This was a
fait accompli. Rather it was, among other matters, a question of whether
the slaveholders and the slaves themselves should be allowed entry into
the western territories. (Read the first chapter of Jefferson Davis' "Rise
and Fall" for a good treatment of this issue.) Even if the emancipation of
slaves was one's objective, the question was who would be the agent of the
slave's freedom -- the Southern people among whom he had lived his entire
life, or the residents of the 98-percent white Northland? Further, was a
war of conquest and subjugation the best means of accomplishing this,
without compensation to the master? Are we not to suppose that this might
create problems for the freedman, never mind the effects upon his
erstwhile owner?
Why is it that Yankees and scalawags are unable to approach these
questions with anything like true objectivity?

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

In article <5042ln$l...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu

(Justin M Sanders) writes:
>Kenneth Stampp's, "The Peculiar Institution" is another, older, but solid
>general history of the subject.>

Fogel and Engerman, in "Time On the Cross" (Vol. 2, pp. 217-247), point
out the several distortions in Stampp's book, which they say represented
"a climax" of the "neo-abolitionist resurgence." Though Fogel and Engerman
stop short of accusing Stampp of bias, it is obvious that Stampp's
selection of data for his studies was, shall we say, convenient to his
purposes. Fogel and Engerman's wider and more systematic approach to the
census data and plantation records produced a far different picture of Old
South slavery than had been previously known.
The economic findings which formed the basis of "Time On the Cross" were
severely denounced upon their first publication in 1967, Fogel and
Engerman facing charges which were (sound familiar?) tatamount to racism.
Since that time, I might point out, critics of the Old South have
concentrated more on plantation narratives and other non-statistical data
on slavery, since the numbers -- by Fogel and Engerman's measure, anyway
-- are substantially a vindication of Dixie.
More than just a reaction to Ulrich Phillips' racist interpretations of
the slave experience, neo-abolitionism -- the historiographic trend of
which "Peculiar Institution" was the apotheosis -- was essentially a
Communist movement. No kidding, folks. Herb Aptheker, author of "Negro
Slave Revolts in the U.S.," was among other things the official party
historian of the Communist Party, U.S.A. (You can look it up in Genovese's
"On the Southern Front," Genovese being the Whittaker Chambers of the
post-Cold War era.)
And -- for extra paranoia points -- ask yourself this: Why would Aptheker,
a CPUSA officer in the 1930s, be so interested in earlier insurrections by
American workers? Why has the insane moral inversion and murderous
terrorism of Nat Turner been celebrated as an act of justice by leading
writers and academics? Why does the mere fact that I am asking these
questions shock you? Would it surprise you to learn that leading American
conservatives have been claiming for 40 years that CPUSA infiltration of
U.S. colleges and universities (particularly Columbia and Berkeley) was a
danger to our Republic?
Enough of the scary McCarthyite stuff, though. Volume 1 of Fogel and
Engerman's "Time on the Cross" is available for for 13.95, postpaid
(credit cards accepted) from The Confederate Shoppe at 205-942-8978.
(e-mail inquires to: confe...@wwisp.com)
By the way, don't think to hard about my paranoia trip. If you've been
thoroughly indoctrinated by public-school textbooks, it sounds like
lunacy. If you skipped indoctrination class and were instead chugging rum
in the high school parking lot, however (ahem), you shouldn't think too
hard about the possibility that Chambers and McCarthy were essentially
right about subversive plots. The knowledge that a certain Moscow-trained
dissident is living at a well-known address on Pennsylvania Avenue, and
the further knowledge that the head of the world's leading news agency is
married to an apologist for the VietCong, is sure to disturb you. And
then, when I win my $10 bet that I can demonstrate that your kid's high
school history textbook is thoroughly pervaded with Marxist doctrine, well
-- it's not paranoia, if they really are out to get you, is it?
Have a nice day!
Robert Stacy McCain
SERVANT: "Sire, the peasants are revolting!"
KING: "You don't have to tell me that -- I can smell them from here!"

RStacy2229

unread,
Aug 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/31/96
to

In article <NEWTNews.841340...@epix.net>, jcr...@epix.net
writes:

>The legacy of this book can still be seen today. If you read about
>slavery in high school textbooks or watch any of the several
>CW mini-series on TV you will see material taken straight from
>this book. Even "Roots" was little more than a retelling of this same
general
>
>theme.

Thank you, Joel, for having the courage to tell the truth. I recently
rented a video of "Roots," sat down with a notebook and analyzed it both
for content and theme. More on that later, if you want it.
Let me ask you some questions:
The author of "Roots" also wrote an earlier book, an "as-told-to"
autobiography. Whose?
The subject of that best-seller died before the book was published. What
is the deceased subject's widow's last name?
What is the origin of that name?
When the subject of Haley's autobiography died, who was accused of his
death and why?
Who took over the movement of which the deceased had once been a major
leader?
What is the ideological doctrine of that movement?
Who recently asked permission to accept a $1 billion gift from a foreign
dictator, vehemently hostile to the U.S.?
Knowing the answers to these questions -- try Dinesh D'Souza's "The End of
Racism" for a starter -- ask yourself: What is to account for the horrific
and blatantly anti-white (not to mention false and inaccurate) depiction
of slavery in "Roots"?

Have a nice day,
STACY

Lynn Berkowitz

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

On 31 Aug 1996 18:53:51 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

[much ranting deleted]

:>WILLIAM JOHNSON'S NATCHEZ--THE DIARY OF A FREE BLACK
:>
I would suggest you get this book out of the library and read it. It
will surprise you. You might even like it. You might even find it
useful for your own purposes.

Geez. WHERE WERE YOU when Ted Werntz was terrorizing the newsgroup?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com

Paul E Larson

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

Maury <w...@cstone.net> wrote in article <504ncj$m...@dot.cstone.net>...



>     Beyond "reading" there are other skills for communication.
> I don't recall that the native Americans read and wrote either,

Actually as I recall the Cherokee People had there own written language before the Europeans arrived. Also , the Iroquois may have had a written language.

--
Brought to you from the brain of Paul E Larson a.k.a.
whis...@servtech.com. Okay it might not be much but
I thought they said trains. I believe that everyone
has the right to their own opinion no matter how wrong
they are.


Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <50afue$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,


RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5042ln$l...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu
>(Justin M Sanders) writes:
>>Kenneth Stampp's, "The Peculiar Institution" is another, older, but solid
>>general history of the subject.>
>
>Fogel and Engerman, in "Time On the Cross" (Vol. 2, pp. 217-247), point
>out the several distortions in Stampp's book, which they say represented
>"a climax" of the "neo-abolitionist resurgence." Though Fogel and Engerman
>stop short of accusing Stampp of bias, it is obvious that Stampp's
>selection of data for his studies was, shall we say, convenient to his
>purposes. Fogel and Engerman's wider and more systematic approach to the
>census data and plantation records produced a far different picture of Old
>South slavery than had been previously known.

Fogel and Engerman produced a far different picture of old south slavery
primarily because their book was riddled with errors and methodological
problems.

>The economic findings which formed the basis of "Time On the Cross" were
>severely denounced upon their first publication in 1967, Fogel and
>Engerman facing charges which were (sound familiar?) tatamount to racism.
>Since that time, I might point out, critics of the Old South have
>concentrated more on plantation narratives and other non-statistical data
>on slavery, since the numbers -- by Fogel and Engerman's measure, anyway
>-- are substantially a vindication of Dixie.

Sigh.

>More than just a reaction to Ulrich Phillips' racist interpretations of
>the slave experience, neo-abolitionism -- the historiographic trend of
>which "Peculiar Institution" was the apotheosis -- was essentially a
>Communist movement. No kidding, folks. Herb Aptheker, author of "Negro
>Slave Revolts in the U.S.," was among other things the official party
>historian of the Communist Party, U.S.A. (You can look it up in Genovese's
>"On the Southern Front," Genovese being the Whittaker Chambers of the
>post-Cold War era.)

If you'd been in this newsgroup longer--and we all heave a hearty sigh of
relief that this was not so--you'd have seen plenty of discussions about
Aptheker, as well as his Marxism. The rest of the above paragraph is
essentially just bull.


>And -- for extra paranoia points -- ask yourself this: Why would Aptheker,
>a CPUSA officer in the 1930s, be so interested in earlier insurrections by
>American workers? Why has the insane moral inversion and murderous
>terrorism of Nat Turner been celebrated as an act of justice by leading
>writers and academics? Why does the mere fact that I am asking these
>questions shock you? Would it surprise you to learn that leading American
>conservatives have been claiming for 40 years that CPUSA infiltration of
>U.S. colleges and universities (particularly Columbia and Berkeley) was a
>danger to our Republic?

That splashing sound came from the deep end.

> Enough of the scary McCarthyite stuff, though. Volume 1 of Fogel and
>Engerman's "Time on the Cross" is available for for 13.95, postpaid
>(credit cards accepted) from The Confederate Shoppe at 205-942-8978.
>(e-mail inquires to: confe...@wwisp.com)
> By the way, don't think to hard about my paranoia trip. If you've been
>thoroughly indoctrinated by public-school textbooks, it sounds like
>lunacy. If you skipped indoctrination class and were instead chugging rum
>in the high school parking lot, however (ahem), you shouldn't think too
>hard about the possibility that Chambers and McCarthy were essentially
>right about subversive plots. The knowledge that a certain Moscow-trained
>dissident is living at a well-known address on Pennsylvania Avenue, and
>the further knowledge that the head of the world's leading news agency is
>married to an apologist for the VietCong, is sure to disturb you. And
>then, when I win my $10 bet that I can demonstrate that your kid's high
>school history textbook is thoroughly pervaded with Marxist doctrine, well
>-- it's not paranoia, if they really are out to get you, is it?

Why don't you go back to your militia rally?

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <3228f4da...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,

Lynn Berkowitz <lynn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On 31 Aug 1996 18:53:51 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
>
>[much ranting deleted]
>
>:>WILLIAM JOHNSON'S NATCHEZ--THE DIARY OF A FREE BLACK
>:>
>I would suggest you get this book out of the library and read it. It
>will surprise you. You might even like it. You might even find it
>useful for your own purposes.
>
>Geez. WHERE WERE YOU when Ted Werntz was terrorizing the newsgroup?

I think he was out buying gasoline and lumber.

steven f miller

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <32256ead...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, lynn...@ix.netcom.com
: (Lynn Berkowitz) writes:

: >For firsthand accounts of the paternalistic and benevolent nature of
: >the institution of slavery, I recommend to Mr. McCain the following:
: >
: >AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF FREDERICK DOUGLASS

: Well, DUH! As Douglass was from Maryland, and as Maryland remained in the
: Union, this is hardly an indictment of the Confederate states.

What is the point of this snippy little comment? Mr. McCain had, in
his patently disingenuous, asked for sources documenting the atrocities of
slavery, even while indicating that he was disinclined to believe any of them.
Ms. Berkowitz, justifiably suspecting his motives, nevertheless provided
appropriate suggestions. So what if Douglass was from Maryland?!
Behold the Confedero-centric mind at work.

: And as


: Douglass was a leading abolitionist writer, it certainly behooved him to
: paint slavery in the worst possible light, didn't it?

Sure. But his abolitionism derived from his experience as a slave; he didn't
have to make this stuff up.

: >TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE, the autobiography of Solomon Northrop (Northrop


: >was a free Black man from Saratoga, New York, kidnapped and sold into
: >slavery as an adult, rescued 12 years later from a Louisiana
: >plantation) (1854)

: Ah, excuse me, but hadn't New Yorkers and New Jerseyites been quite active
: in selling their OWN SLAVES to the South but a few decades prior to the
: publication of this?

Yes. What's the relevance of this to the point under discussion?

: I have never read Northrop's account [off-the-point rantings deleted]

I didn't think so.

: I suspect that, whatever element of


: truth if any it contains, the story might properly be classified, like
: Douglass' work, as Yankee abolitionist propaganda.
: Remember, these folks
: wanted to sell books, and "abolitionist" was a full-time job for some
: people.

Just as "slave" was a full-time job for four million people.

: >AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAMS WELLS BROWN (1850's)
: >THE KIDNAPPED AND THE RANSOMED by Kate Pickard (1856)
: >WILLIAM JOHNSON'S NATCHEZ--THE DIARY OF A FREE BLACK
: >
: These titles are unfamiliar to me,

Picking up a pattern here.

: but again -- any writing about slavery


: published in the North during the 1850s should not be accepted as
: unbiased, nor even factual, until checked against documentary evidence.

Agreed. That would be *almost* as silly as rejecting a whole category of
sources without having read any of them. The Johnson diary, by the way, was
not published in the 1850s and is not an indictment of slavery.

: How idiotic that the devotees of Boasian relativism extend their dogmatic


: cultural neutrality to all but the putative oppressors.

Exactly which "devotees of Boasian relativism" do you have in mind? The
production line's humming at McCain's Straw Man Manufactory.

: Am I the only one who brings a cynical attitude to my historic reading?

No, but to judge from your posts here your cynicism is applied in a highly
selective manner. In any case, I'd suggest that skepticism is a
more useful attitude to bring to historical reading than cynicism.

: goodness, people, I work at a newspaper and I KNOW how a propaganda


: campaign operates. I KNOW how facts are omitted and distorted to generate
: the desired public response.

Practice makes perfect, I suppose. I'm not sure, though, that your omissions
and distortions of facts are getting "the desired public response." Or
perhaps they are.

: Wake up and smell the agitprop, people. Imagine what you would say about


: me if I brought such a gullible naivete to my readings of the pro-slavery
: argument.

Not much, given the gullible naivete you've brought to your readings of
_Time on the Cross_, Genovese, and Dinesh D'Souza. Being a gentleman,
I'd never call you a "devotee of Boasian relativism." ;)

Steven F. "them's fightin' words" Miller

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <50bee3$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

>Fogel and Engerman produced a far different picture of old south slavery
>primarily because their book was riddled with errors and methodological
>problems.

Such as?

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <3228f4da...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, lynn...@ix.netcom.com
(Lynn Berkowitz) writes:

>Geez. WHERE WERE YOU when Ted Werntz was terrorizing the newsgroup?

Who is Ted Werntz?

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <50bee3$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

>Herb Aptheker, author of "Negro
>>Slave Revolts in the U.S.," was among other things the official party
>>historian of the Communist Party, U.S.A. (You can look it up in
Genovese's
>>"On the Southern Front," Genovese being the Whittaker Chambers of the
>>post-Cold War era.)
>
>If you'd been in this newsgroup longer--and we all heave a hearty sigh of

>relief that this was not so--you'd have seen plenty of discussions about
>Aptheker, as well as his Marxism. The rest of the above paragraph is
>essentially just bull.
>

Was not Aptheker the CPUSA official historian? Is Genovese lying?

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <50beh7$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

>>Geez. WHERE WERE YOU when Ted Werntz was terrorizing the newsgroup?
>

>I think he was out buying gasoline and lumber.

Ha, ha. I repeat: Who is Ted Werntz? And while I'm at it, how was he
"terrorizing the newsgroup"?
RSMc

Dave Smith

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

sfmi...@wam.umd.edu (steven f miller) wrote:

>RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:

>: but again -- any writing about slavery


>: published in the North during the 1850s should not be accepted as
>: unbiased, nor even factual, until checked against documentary evidence.

>Agreed. That would be *almost* as silly as rejecting a whole category of

>sources without having read any of them. The Johnson diary, by the way, was
>not published in the 1850s and is not an indictment of slavery.

And gosh, I guess rejecting out of hand the writings of anyone
published in the North in the 1850s regarding slavery as biased would
lead one to the inescapable conclusion that any Southern writings
written in the 1850s on slavery was:

a) equally biased.
b) genuinely factual.
c) both of the above.
d) none of the above.

Dave "what am I missing here?" Smith

------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Smith "Always Store Beer in a Dark Place"
Villa Hills, Ky --- Lazarus Long
http://users.aol.com/dmsmith001/
The Cincinnati CWRT http://users.aol.com/CintiCWRT/
------------------------------------------------------------


RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <50bee3$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>Why don't you go back to your militia rally?

Hey, Mark, you're invited to be guest of honor at our next target-practice
session. :)
RSMc

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

In article <01bb97ab$334b5f40$4e90...@PPP.syr.servtech.com>, "Paul E

Larson" <whis...@servtech.com> writes:
>Actually as I recall the Cherokee People had there own written language
>before the Europeans arrived. Also , the Iroquois may have had a written
>language.

WRONG. The Cherokee alphabet was the work of Sequoyah, and was not
developed until the 19th century. Sequoyah was certainly influenced by
Christian missionaries and was able to read English before he developed
the Cherokee written language. By the way, the Cherokees were not native
to this region, but -- after the collapse of the Coosa (Muscogean)
chiefdom, caused mainly by the De Soto expedition -- the Cherokees moved
down from the area of Virginia. The Cherokee were part of the 17th-century
Indian slave trade with Virginia and were bitter enemies of the Creek
descendants of the Muscogean peoples of historic Georgia and Alabama. The
Cherokee helped Jackson fight the Creek at Horseshoe Bend.

Robert Stacy McCain
Who used to live just a couple of miles from New Echota, capital of the
Cherokee Nation, whose grandmother lived not far from Horsehoe Bend, and
who did a lot of study of this region's prehistory.

James F. Epperson

unread,
Sep 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/1/96
to

On 1 Sep 1996, RStacy2229 wrote:

> In article <50beh7$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,


> mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>

> >>Geez. WHERE WERE YOU when Ted Werntz was terrorizing the newsgroup?
> >
> >I think he was out buying gasoline and lumber.
>
> Ha, ha. I repeat: Who is Ted Werntz? And while I'm at it, how was he
> "terrorizing the newsgroup"?

Ted Werntz was the Anti-McCain -- more correctly, several participants
have characterized you as the Anti-Werntz. He is the reason, more than
anyone else probably, that the moderated group was formed. In terms of
"blue" and "gray," he was blue, but none of us would claim him or defend
him. Like you he could occasionally be constructive and tolerable, but
also like you he was capable of extraordinary leaps of illogic and venom,
both without any apparent provocation or cause. One moment you are
having a semi-decent discussion, the next he is calling you a racist and
other fun names because you dared to disagree with him. His hobby horse
was the "thesis" that the North American slave trade was entirely the
fault of <exageration mode on> five elderly Jews in Newport <end
exageration>. Ted disappeared from the NG about a year or so ago, and we
all breathed a collective sigh of relief. I hear the same sigh whenever
you are gone for a few days, but those have all been false alarms,
unfortunately. I have heard rumors about why Ted disappeared but they
involve other participants here and so I do not feel at liberty to
discuss them. I hope he is receiving good care wherever he is.

My apologies for even spending this much time discussing the putz.

Jim Epperson

The student who changes the course of history is probably
taking an exam.


Lynn Berkowitz

unread,
Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96
to

On 1 Sep 1996 15:23:13 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:
:
:Ha, ha. I repeat: Who is Ted Werntz? And while I'm at it, how was he
:"terrorizing the newsgroup"?
:RSMc

"Terrorizing the newsgroup" (I mighta misspoke. Maybe "harrassing" or
"annoying" or "irritating" or "making a total @ss of himself" would be a
better choice of words)

The Werntzter's M.O.

1. Binge posting, at times posting the same 40K nonsense message multiple
times.
2. Ad hominem attacks.
3. Calling anyone who disagreed with his peculiar, far-out, whacko views, a
"fascist".
4. Quoting out of context. (He especially liked the "Encyclopedia Judaica"
as a favorite source of information on the transatlantic slave trade, and
the genocide of Native Americans)
5. Fixation on bizarre and unproven theories of slavery.
6. Master of the non sequiter
7. Boasting about the exploits of his ancestors, in particular his Aunt
Maury-- er-- I mean his Aunt Mary.

Does anyone else detect a pattern here?

Boy howdy, we should have an a.w.c.u. "Gladiatorial Combat to the Death"
between these two soul brothers! Put these dudes in the pit and let them
slug it out with 2X4's. Then, we can shoot the winner!

Of course, a duel of this nature would require the return of the
Werntzmeister from underneath whatever rock he has crawled off too, and I
have to admit that McCain has occasionally demonstrated a sense of humor
which suggests a human being deep down inside. Werntz was truly psychotic
and a prime candidate for postnatal abortion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96
to

In article <50cmo2$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <50bee3$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>Fogel and Engerman produced a far different picture of old south slavery
>>primarily because their book was riddled with errors and methodological
>>problems.
>
>Such as?

There have been two entire books devoted to nothing other than the errors in
_Time on the Cross_. One is _Slavery and the Numbers Game_ by Herbert Gutman,
and the other is a collection called _Reckoning with Slavery_. In addition, a
number of other scholars have pointed out gross errors in _Time on the Cross_;
see, for instance, the introduction to _The Overseer_.

The fact that you are not aware of all this speaks volumes.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96
to

In article <50cn6k$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>(Lynn Berkowitz) writes:
>
>>Geez. WHERE WERE YOU when Ted Werntz was terrorizing the newsgroup?
>
>Who is Ted Werntz?

Another bigot.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96
to

In article <50cnjf$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <50bee3$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>Herb Aptheker, author of "Negro
>>>Slave Revolts in the U.S.," was among other things the official party
>>>historian of the Communist Party, U.S.A. (You can look it up in
>Genovese's
>>>"On the Southern Front," Genovese being the Whittaker Chambers of the
>>>post-Cold War era.)
>>
>>If you'd been in this newsgroup longer--and we all heave a hearty sigh of
>
>>relief that this was not so--you'd have seen plenty of discussions about
>>Aptheker, as well as his Marxism. The rest of the above paragraph is
>>essentially just bull.
>>
>Was not Aptheker the CPUSA official historian? Is Genovese lying?

This little snippet was not what I was talking about.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96
to

In article <50cnr1$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <50beh7$g...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>>>Geez. WHERE WERE YOU when Ted Werntz was terrorizing the newsgroup?
>>
>>I think he was out buying gasoline and lumber.
>
>Ha, ha. I repeat: Who is Ted Werntz? And while I'm at it, how was he
>"terrorizing the newsgroup"?
>RSMc

Ted Werntz was a passionately anti-semitic man who was interested in proving
that Jews were responsible for slavery. In some ways he is the yin to your
yang; in others, you are both yangs.

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/2/96
to

In article <322ad1f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,

Lynn Berkowitz <lynn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Of course, a duel of this nature would require the return of the
>Werntzmeister from underneath whatever rock he has crawled off too, and I
>have to admit that McCain has occasionally demonstrated a sense of humor
>which suggests a human being deep down inside. Werntz was truly psychotic
>and a prime candidate for postnatal abortion.

Too deep for my flashlight. I'd call it a pretty close race.

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

In article <50f1cq$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>The fact that you are not aware of all this speaks volumes.

Well, kiss my Southern hindquarters, you uppity postgraduate scalawag son
of a b****!
If it is not in the local library or the local bookstore, I fail to see
where I am to be held accountable for not having read it. By the way, I
happen to have a job and a family, plus a few interests which are
unrelated to the topic of slavery, so for you to say that it "speaks
volumes" that I have not read these titles is rather high-handed.
And as for "speaking volumes," it speaks volumes of this newsgroup that no
one had ever mentioned "Time On the Cross" during my 7+ months here, and
that had I not been digging through the footnotes of "The End of Racism,"
I would have been completely unaware of the general content of Fogel &
Engerman.
While grinding axes here, let me quote Eugene Genovese, from "The Southern
Front: History and Politics in the Cultural War" (1995, University of
Missouri Press), beginning on page 201:
"I was unfair to Herbert Aptheker, the Communist Party's longtime
principal historian, whose contributions to Afro-American history have
been seminal. ... He comes as close as any man I know to being an
exception to the dictum I laid down in my essay "On Being a Socialist and
a Historian" ... about the virtual impossibility of combining a career as
an activist with sustained, serious scholarship. .... Writing for
*Political Affairs*, his party's theoretical organ, and other
publications, and having to prepare pamphlets for mass education,
inevitably led to some compromises with the highest standards of his more
leisurely scholarly writing."
Genovese further describes Aptheker "as a staunch party man -- something I
have always admired and envied him for being."
Now, having been sneered at as a "militia" goon for asserting that
Aptheker was a Communist propagandist, I will say again: The man was a
thoroughgoing Red, who while writing history books about slave revolts was
quite actively preparing "mass education" tracts intended to bring about
proletarian revolution in our own time.
And, I should say, that I quite unexpectedly stumbled onto Genovese and
his wife -- both well-known Marxists, whom I'd never heard of -- two years
ago while researching the National Standards for U.S. History. Ms.
Fox-Genovese was listed as the leading Georgian on the panel which
supervised the putting-together of the Standards -- and a dissenter, as I
later learned. I went into "Contemporary Authors" and discovered that she
was a Yankee Commie carpetbagger. I guessed that her selection to this
panel was based upon her presumed anti-American, anti-Western bias (Gary
Nash at USC was heading the thing up). I made much of this in my column:
"Marxists in Georgia! How did they ever get in?"
It was only later that I discoved the extent of the Genoveses' apostasy
from Leftism. He is actually starting to say nice things about God, for
instance, and her latest book is called "Feminism Is Not My Life." I
suppose that at some future date, Bubba-Gene is going to "get religion" at
a tent revival and Miz Betsy will get a beehive, trace her ancestry back
and join the UDC.

Robert Stacy McCain

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

In article <50h5qd$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,

RStacy2229 <rstac...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <50f1cq$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>>The fact that you are not aware of all this speaks volumes.
>
>Well, kiss my Southern hindquarters, you uppity postgraduate scalawag son
>of a b****!
>If it is not in the local library or the local bookstore, I fail to see
>where I am to be held accountable for not having read it. By the way, I
>happen to have a job and a family, plus a few interests which are
>unrelated to the topic of slavery, so for you to say that it "speaks
>volumes" that I have not read these titles is rather high-handed.

If you come in here and wield a source as if it were a bludgeon, then you damn
well ought to be aware of the weaknesses of that source--or else expect the
consequences. If you have a job and a family and other interests which limit
your knowledge of slavery, then you should limit your assertiveness in due
proportion.

>And as for "speaking volumes," it speaks volumes of this newsgroup that no
>one had ever mentioned "Time On the Cross" during my 7+ months here, and
>that had I not been digging through the footnotes of "The End of Racism,"
>I would have been completely unaware of the general content of Fogel &
>Engerman.

Perhaps there is a reason why -Time on the Cross- rarely gets mentioned, and
that is because it is discredited as a source.


>While grinding axes here, let me quote Eugene Genovese, from "The Southern
>Front: History and Politics in the Cultural War" (1995, University of
>Missouri Press), beginning on page 201:
>"I was unfair to Herbert Aptheker, the Communist Party's longtime
>principal historian, whose contributions to Afro-American history have
>been seminal. ... He comes as close as any man I know to being an
>exception to the dictum I laid down in my essay "On Being a Socialist and
>a Historian" ... about the virtual impossibility of combining a career as
>an activist with sustained, serious scholarship. .... Writing for
>*Political Affairs*, his party's theoretical organ, and other
>publications, and having to prepare pamphlets for mass education,
>inevitably led to some compromises with the highest standards of his more
>leisurely scholarly writing."
>Genovese further describes Aptheker "as a staunch party man -- something I
>have always admired and envied him for being."
>Now, having been sneered at as a "militia" goon for asserting that
>Aptheker was a Communist propagandist, I will say again: The man was a
>thoroughgoing Red, who while writing history books about slave revolts was
>quite actively preparing "mass education" tracts intended to bring about
>proletarian revolution in our own time.

You were sneered at as a militia loon (I prefer that to goon) because of your
paranoid conspiratorial theories, not because you said Aptheker was a
Communist. Since many of his books were printed by what was the "leading"
Marxist press at the time, it would be hard for someone to deny that he was a
Marxist (not that he ever did). I don't see where in the above quote Genovese
mentions "proletarian revolution in our own time," though.

>And, I should say, that I quite unexpectedly stumbled onto Genovese and
>his wife -- both well-known Marxists, whom I'd never heard of -- two years
>ago while researching the National Standards for U.S. History. Ms.
>Fox-Genovese was listed as the leading Georgian on the panel which
>supervised the putting-together of the Standards -- and a dissenter, as I
>later learned. I went into "Contemporary Authors" and discovered that she
>was a Yankee Commie carpetbagger. I guessed that her selection to this
>panel was based upon her presumed anti-American, anti-Western bias (Gary
>Nash at USC was heading the thing up). I made much of this in my column:
>"Marxists in Georgia! How did they ever get in?"

I am surprised that, for all your avowed interest in Southern history, you had
never heard of the man who has written one of the major works on slavery or the
woman who has written one of the major works on Southern women. Actually, I'll
be frank, I am not surprised in the least.

>It was only later that I discoved the extent of the Genoveses' apostasy
>from Leftism. He is actually starting to say nice things about God, for
>instance, and her latest book is called "Feminism Is Not My Life." I
>suppose that at some future date, Bubba-Gene is going to "get religion" at
>a tent revival and Miz Betsy will get a beehive, trace her ancestry back
>and join the UDC.

People's politics concern me far less than whether they do good history.

Justin M Sanders

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:
> And as for "speaking volumes," it speaks volumes of this newsgroup that no
> one had ever mentioned "Time On the Cross" during my 7+ months here, and
> that had I not been digging through the footnotes of "The End of Racism,"
> I would have been completely unaware of the general content of Fogel &
> Engerman.

If Mr. McCain has been reading this newsgroup for 7+ months, then he
should have seen "Time on the Cross" mentioned *at least* seven times.
Each and every month, the suggested reading list for this group is posted,
and "Time on the Cross" is one of the recommended books dealing with
slavery. The entry contains a brief, general description of the book,
mentions that it was controversial and that much subsequent work was done
which opposed various points in the book. Another book on the list is
Paul Davies' "Reckoning with Slavery", a collection of essays dealing with
the issues raised by TotC.

Since "Time on the Cross" is mentioned monthly (at least) here, this
newsgroup cannot be blamed for Mr. McCain's previous unfamiliarity with
it and with the subsequent literature.

--
Justin M. Sanders "I shot an arrow into the air. It fell
Dept. of Physics to earth I know not where." --Henry
Univ. of South Alabama Wadsworth Longfellow confessing
jsan...@jaguar1.usouthal.edu to a sad ignorance of ballistics.

efr...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

> RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:
>> And as for "speaking volumes," it speaks volumes of this newsgroup that no
>> one had ever mentioned "Time On the Cross" during my 7+ months here, and

TotC has to wait its turn, right after the Kennedy bros.

>> that had I not been digging through the footnotes of "The End of Racism,"
>> I would have been completely unaware of the general content of Fogel &
>> Engerman.

And Justin replied:



> Since "Time on the Cross" is mentioned monthly (at least) here, this
> newsgroup cannot be blamed for Mr. McCain's previous unfamiliarity with
> it and with the subsequent literature.

I think Abe Lincoln, William Lloyd Garrison, Herbert
Aptheker, and Mark Pitcavage must have conspired to
remove the 'reading list' from 2229's server each and
every month.

Ed "it's always someone else's fault" Frank

REB 4 LIFE

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

In article <322ad1f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, lynn...@ix.netcom.com
(Lynn Berkowitz) writes:

>1. Binge posting, at times posting the same 40K nonsense message
>multiple times.
>2. Ad hominem attacks.
>3. Calling anyone who disagreed with his peculiar, far-out, whacko views,
a
>"fascist".
>4. Quoting out of context. (He especially liked the "Encyclopedia
Judaica"
>as a favorite source of information on the transatlantic slave trade, and
>the genocide of Native Americans)
>5. Fixation on bizarre and unproven theories of slavery.
>6. Master of the non sequiter
>7. Boasting about the exploits of his ancestors, in particular his Aunt
>Maury-- er-- I mean his Aunt Mary.

>Does anyone else detect a pattern here?

Yeah, I do. Sounds like Brooks Simpson.

R4L


System Janitor

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

>On 1 Sep 1996, RStacy2229 wrote:
>> Who is Ted Werntz?

"James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
* He is the reason, more than
* anyone else probably, that the moderated group was formed. In terms of
* "blue" and "gray," he was blue, but none of us would claim him or defend
* him. Like you he could occasionally be constructive and tolerable, but
* also like you he was capable of extraordinary leaps of illogic and venom,
* both without any apparent provocation or cause.

This makes Ted sound like Mark Pitcavage.

I recall I have defended him at least once in his absence. No
one needed to defend him while he was here.

* I hope he is receiving good care wherever he is.

He can be reached at wer...@eisner.decus.org, and might be
interested in returning if he knew we were discussing him.

-Mike

System Janitor

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>If you'd been in this newsgroup longer--and we all heave a hearty sigh of
>relief that this was not so...

Sigh.

Mark, you do such a poor job of speaking for yourself, please
don't assume you can speak for me.

-Mike

gary charbonneau

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960901183122.2980D-100000@zonker>,

James F. Epperson <eppe...@math.uah.edu> wrote:

>Ted Werntz was the Anti-McCain -- more correctly, several participants

>have characterized you as the Anti-Werntz. He is the reason, more than

>anyone else probably, that the moderated group was formed. In terms of

>"blue" and "gray," he was blue, but none of us would claim him or defend

>him. Like you he could occasionally be constructive and tolerable, but

>also like you he was capable of extraordinary leaps of illogic and venom,

>both without any apparent provocation or cause. One moment you are
>having a semi-decent discussion, the next he is calling you a racist and
>other fun names because you dared to disagree with him. His hobby horse
>was the "thesis" that the North American slave trade was entirely the
>fault of <exageration mode on> five elderly Jews in Newport <end
>exageration>.

Don't forget to add three other hobby horses:

1. That as many as 1,000,000 slaves may have been illegally smuggled
into the United States from Africa between 1808 and 1860.

2. That John Bell Hood was a military genius because he had a superb
bridge train and managed it effectively.

3. That, because John Bell Hood had a superb bridge train, the
South must have been much more industrialized than most historians
are willing to admit.

- Gary Charbonneau

System Janitor

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) said (again):
>The fact that you are not aware of all this speaks volumes.

>>speaks volumes about you and makes you quite detestable.

>>speaks volumes and volumes and volumes

>>speaks volumes about you.

Yawn. Not that line again. What were we even talking about? Oh yeah,
check out the intro to The Overseers by Scarborough, if you want
to see the hokus-pokus that he used to refute Fogel and Engerman's
hokus-pokus.

That I think it is basically hokus-pokus probably ______ _______ about
me, what do you think? :-)

-Mike

Mark T Pitcavage

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

In article <hubcap.841769469@hubcap>,

System Janitor <hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu> wrote:
>Yawn. Not that line again. What were we even talking about? Oh yeah,
>check out the intro to The Overseers by Scarborough, if you want
>to see the hokus-pokus that he used to refute Fogel and Engerman's
>hokus-pokus.
>
>That I think it is basically hokus-pokus probably ______ _______ about
>me, what do you think? :-)

Maybe you thought it was hokus-pokus, but Fogel and Engerman did not think it
was hokus-pokus, and Robert Fogel made sure to send an advance draft of his
next book to Scarborough so that he could critique it.

efr...@cc.memphis.edu

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

In article <hubcap.841765736@hubcap>, hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor) writes:
>>On 1 Sep 1996, RStacy2229 wrote:
>>> Who is Ted Werntz?
>
> "James F. Epperson" <eppe...@math.uah.edu> writes:
> * He is the reason, more than
> * anyone else probably, that the moderated group was formed. In terms of
> * "blue" and "gray," he was blue, but none of us would claim him or defend
> * him. Like you he could occasionally be constructive and tolerable, but
> * also like you he was capable of extraordinary leaps of illogic and venom,
> * both without any apparent provocation or cause.
>
> This makes Ted sound like Mark Pitcavage.
>
> I recall I have defended him at least once in his absence. No
> one needed to defend him while he was here.
>
> * I hope he is receiving good care wherever he is.
>
> He can be reached at wer...@eisner.decus.org, and might be
> interested in returning if he knew we were discussing him.

OH GAWD NO!

Ed "I will admit that he was aware of the existance of
pre-steamboat upriver trade on the mighty Miss'ippi" Frank


REB 4 LIFE

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

In article <hubcap.841769469@hubcap>, hub...@hubcap.clemson.edu (System
Janitor) writes:

>Yawn. Not that line again. What were we even talking about? Oh yeah,
>check out the intro to The Overseers by Scarborough, if you want
>to see the hokus-pokus that he used to refute Fogel and Engerman's
>hokus-pokus.
>
>That I think it is basically hokus-pokus probably ______ _______ about
>me, what do you think? :-)
>
>

Uhhhhh......speaks volumes? Ooops! Should I have given
my answer in the form of a question?

R4L

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50cbim$h...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, sfmi...@wam.umd.edu
(steven f miller) writes:
>QUOTING LYNN
>: >TWELVE YEARS A SLAVE, the autobiography of Solomon Northrop (Northrop
>: >was a free Black man from Saratoga, New York, kidnapped and sold into
>: >slavery as an adult, rescued 12 years later from a Louisiana
>: >plantation) (1854)
>QUOTING ME
>: Ah, excuse me, but hadn't New Yorkers and New Jerseyites been quite
active
>: in selling their OWN SLAVES to the South but a few decades prior to the
>: publication of this?
>AND NOW STEVE
>Yes. What's the relevance of this to the point under discussion?

The point is that Lynn was, by citing these titles, attempting to indict
the South. But the kidnapper who breaks the laws of New York to sell a
free man to a Louisiana planter hardly serves this purpose. And I do not
know that Solomon Northrop's account has been authenticated. As for the
sneer which someone had early made: I haven't read it, because it is not
available in the local library or local bookstores. I read an excerpt of
Douglass' autobiography in my college AmLit anthology, but that was 15
years ago and I don't remember much. I recently bought "Uncle Tom's Cabin"
and have tried to read it, but can't stop laughing hysterically: These
people sit around all day and never talk about anything else but "Negro
this" and "Negro that," as if it were the only possible subject of
discussion. A similarly laughable obsession is detectable in "Roots: The
Miniseries." How absurd, that 100 percent of the Southern population sat
around all day, year after year, and discussed the circumstances of 35
percent of the population. An abolitionist idee fixe, I suppose.

Robert Stacy McCain

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50cbim$h...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, sfmi...@wam.umd.edu
(steven f miller) writes:
QUOTING ME
>I work at a newspaper and I KNOW how a propaganda
>: campaign operates. I KNOW how facts are omitted and distorted to
generate
>: the desired public response.
>AND HIS COMMENT
>Practice makes perfect, I suppose. I'm not sure, though, that your
omissions
>and distortions of facts are getting "the desired public response."

Steve: You're missing the point. What I'm saying is, that in the 1850s, a
tremendous power struggle between Northern and Southern politicians was
taking place, and the North used the agitation over slavery for propaganda
purposes. And the same sort of thing happens today. We've got a fax
machine at the newspaper office that spews out political propaganda seven
days a week. The techniques are fascinating and I, for one, do not believe
that we have greatly advanced the methods of propaganda very much in the
past 130 years, except in purely techological means.
It should never be forgotten that the primary beneficiaries of the Woah
were not the slaves, who on the whole merely made a creeping step into
peonage. Rather, it was the Yankee industrialists, speculators and
politicians who really raked in the gravy. That was the point, you see.
And we knew that all along.

Robert Stacy McCain

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50cbim$h...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, sfmi...@wam.umd.edu
(steven f miller) writes:
QUOTING ME
> Imagine what you would say about
>: me if I brought such a gullible naivete to my readings of the
pro-slavery
>: argument.
>NOW HIS COMMENT
>Not much, given the gullible naivete you've brought to your readings of
>_Time on the Cross_, Genovese, and Dinesh D'Souza. Being a gentleman,
>I'd never call you a "devotee of Boasian relativism."

Gullible naivete toward what? How so? Please elaborate, sir.

Robert Stacy McCain

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50cbim$h...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, sfmi...@wam.umd.edu
(steven f miller) writes:
>QUOTING ME
>: And as
>: Douglass was a leading abolitionist writer, it certainly behooved him
to
>: paint slavery in the worst possible light, didn't it?
>NOW HIM
>Sure. But his abolitionism derived from his experience as a slave; he
didn't
>have to make this stuff up.

Right. But "professional abolitionist" was one of the most promising
careers open to Douglass, and I'm sure he was willing to give the people
what they wanted. I do not doubt that Douglass' master was about as cruel
as Douglass depicted him, nor do I doubt that Douglass had reasons to
object the treatment he received. But I do not think that his account of
his treatment in Maryland was a characterization of the life of the
typical slave in Columbia, S.C., or Chattanooga, Tenn. Douglass was not a
typical slave and I do not assume that his experience under slavery was
typical of the institution in general.

Robert Stacy McCain

Lynn Berkowitz

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

On 4 Sep 1996 03:19:17 -0400, rstac...@aol.com (RStacy2229) wrote:

:The point is that Lynn was, by citing these titles, attempting to indict


:the South. But the kidnapper who breaks the laws of New York to sell a
:free man to a Louisiana planter hardly serves this purpose. And I do not
:know that Solomon Northrop's account has been authenticated.

I was attempting nothing of the kind, but merely offering (off the top
of my li'l ole head) some suggested reading material of the variety
Mr. McCain solicited. As for Northrop's story, it is one of the better
documented "freed slave" narratives and an annotated edition may be
found in any public library or ordered through ILL. (publisher is
Louisiana State University, I'll have to look up the ISBN) As for New
York state laws being violated, Northrop was freed under Louisiana
state law which prohibited the sale of a free person.

There was a movie made of this book, along the lines of the "Roots"
miniseries. It sucked.

I notice Mr. McC. has not addressed my recommendation of WILLIAM
JOHNSON'S NATCHEZ. I don't know why. It doesn't contain any Marxist
dogma, is a reliable, authenticated first person account by a free
Black man of Mississippi in the 1830's. Yes, he owned slaves too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lynn Berkowitz lynn...@ix.netcom.com

Justin M Sanders

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:
> The point is that Lynn was, by citing these titles, attempting to indict
> the South.

No, Lynn was not attempting to indict the South. She was attempting to
assist Mr. McCain by giving him *exactly what he requested*-- a book which
might be *the* source of the Horrific View of slavery (see the "subject:"
line composed by Mr. McCain).

Given Mr. McCain's ungracious response to Lynn's helpfulness, I suspect
that at least two of us, who attempted to comply with McCain's
disingenuous request, will not be so ready to help in the future. Troll
me once, shame on you; troll me twice, shame on me.

Axel Kleiboemer

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

Friends,

A modest observation.

Some time ago, Mr. McCain began this thread with the observation that he
had engaged in flames with the best of them, implying that he was now
ready to engage in civilized discussion.

He then asked for help in finding the single book on the miseries of
slavery which, in his omniverous reading, he might have missed. The
insincerity of his inquiry, in my opinion, was apparent from the nature
of the request for help.

He then got all kinds of suggestions and comments.

Every two or three days, Mr. McCain sits down and knocks every response
for imaginary or quibbling reasons. For a non-contributor to the thread,
like me, the context is totally lost by then.

My response is none. Mr. McCain, I think, must get a great deal of
self-gratification out of this method of obfuscation. I find it difficult
to believe that the self-gratification is entirely intellectual.

Regards, Axel


RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50cld6$o...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, dmsmi...@aol.com
(Dave Smith) writes:
>
>And gosh, I guess rejecting out of hand the writings of anyone
>published in the North in the 1850s regarding slavery as biased would
>lead one to the inescapable conclusion that any Southern writings
>written in the 1850s on slavery was:
>
>a) equally biased.
>b) genuinely factual.
>c) both of the above.
>d) none of the above.
>
I would say C. That is, the Southerner writing PUBLICLY about slavery in
the 1850s was de-facto an apologist for the "peculiar institution," as
were of course many Northern writers of the same era. I did NOT say that
Northern writings about slavery from the 1850s should be "rejected out of
hand," only that we should assume that any writings about such an
inflammatory topic in such an inflammatory decade should be checked
against the documentary evidence, and we should suspect abolitionist bias
in any work published or written by abolitionists.

An "abolitionist bias" might be defined as a tendency to dramatize, dwell
upon, exaggerate or even to fabricate stories of outrageous abuses against
the slaves. For instance, some slaves were almost certainly murdered
during the antebellum period, but people were also murdered elsewhere,
under other social systems and in other periods. Yet every slave murder is
held -- in abolitionist and neo-abolitionist literature -- to be
representative of slavery itself, whereas if we tried to say that the
number of murders in L.A. or New York was an indictment of life in those
cities, the Angelenos and New Yorkers would be justifiably angered.

Neo-abolitionist bias is quite evident in this newsgroup, as in the thread
headed, "Slavery and the Holocaust: An Apt Comparison" -- a thread, I
might add, which quickly devolved into something utterly unrelated to its
header.

Robert Stacy McCain

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50f1hg$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Ted Werntz was a passionately anti-semitic man who was interested in
proving
>that Jews were responsible for slavery. In some ways he is the yin to
your
>yang; in others, you are both yangs.
>
1. I am not anti-semitic. I am anti-Yankee (except my Ohio-born wife, of
course).
2. Jews were responsible for slavery, but to no greater extent than were
Arabs, Africans, Portugese, Spanish, Dutch, French, British and Yankees.
What cooks me -- and a lot of other Southerners -- is the constant
portrayal of slavery as "a Southern thing," its collateral ironclad
association with the Confederacy and the acceptance at face value of the
view that every antebellum Southerner was a wenching, slave-driving brute.
Anyone protesting against this purposeful stigmatization is classed (by
Mark, anyway) as a racist, anti-semite, Holocaust-denying, gun-wielding
militia goon.
3. Got your yin-yang, buddy -- hanging low.

Robert Stacy McYang
Rome GA

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50hpps$8...@dismay.ucs.indiana.edu>,
char...@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>Don't forget to add three other hobby horses:
>
>1. That as many as 1,000,000 slaves may have been illegally smuggled
> into the United States from Africa between 1808 and 1860.>

Wait, wasn't that the job of those five elderly Jews in Rhode Island?

>2. That John Bell Hood was a military genius because he had a superb
> bridge train and managed it effectively.

A delusion as vain as to imagine that Braxton Bragg was worthy of
commanding an army.

Robert Stacy McCain
The medication seems to be working now

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50f234$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>Lynn Berkowitz <lynn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Of course, a duel of this nature would require the return of the
>>Werntzmeister from underneath whatever rock he has crawled off too, and
I
>>have to admit that McCain has occasionally demonstrated a sense of humor
>>which suggests a human being deep down inside. Werntz was truly
psychotic
>>and a prime candidate for postnatal abortion.

WAIT! No less a Confederatephobe than Ms. Berkowitz, she of the "happy
darkeys," has spotted the possibility that I might be a human being and
somewhat less psychotic than the "passionately anti-semitic" Werntz!!
There is yet hope!

RSMc
Who is no more psychotic than W.T. "Got a light?" Sherman

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50hae4$a...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:
>
>I am surprised that, for all your avowed interest in Southern history,
you
>had
>never heard of the man who has written one of the major works on slavery
or
>the
>woman who has written one of the major works on Southern women.
Actually,
>I'll
>be frank, I am not surprised in the least.

To repeat what I have repeatedly repeated before, my previous interest in
the Woah was purely from the standpoint of military history. It is only in
recent months that I've given any real study to the socio-economic and
political aspects of the matter. Forgive me. Mea magna culpa.

Robert Stacy McCain
Trying to make up his deficits here

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50jus9$5...@hermes.acs.unt.edu>, jsan...@jove.acs.unt.edu

(Justin M Sanders) writes:
>
>No, Lynn was not attempting to indict the South. She was attempting to
>assist Mr. McCain by giving him *exactly what he requested*-- a book
which
>might be *the* source of the Horrific View of slavery (see the "subject:"
>line composed by Mr. McCain).
>Given Mr. McCain's ungracious response to Lynn's helpfulness,

And Lynn's suggesting that I was trying to find "happy darkey" tales was
"gracious" in what sense of the word?

RSMc

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <322ad1f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, lynn...@ix.netcom.com
(Lynn Berkowitz) writes:
>The Werntzter's M.O.

>1. Binge posting, at times posting the same 40K nonsense message multiple
>times.
Wait a minute, let me upload this really HOT jpeg file, Chuck Connors'
outtakes from "Roots" ...
>2. Ad hominem attacks.
The poltroon! Just like a damn lying Yankee ...

>3. Calling anyone who disagreed with his peculiar, far-out, whacko views,
a
>"fascist".
Actually, "scalawag" and "neo-abolitionist" are among my personal
favorites for those who disagree with my whacko views.

>4. Quoting out of context. (He especially liked the "Encyclopedia
Judaica"
>as a favorite source of information on the transatlantic slave trade, and
>the genocide of Native Americans)
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of
hell?
-- Matthew 23:33

>5. Fixation on bizarre and unproven theories of slavery.
Now he sounds like Alex Haley ...

>6. Master of the non sequiter
But I assume he could spell non sequitur ...

Robert Stacy McCain
Rome GA

RStacy2229

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

In article <50hae4$a...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,

mpit...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark T Pitcavage) writes:

> I don't see where in the above quote Genovese
>mentions "proletarian revolution in our own time," though.

Can an out-and-out Marxist ever have any other objective? Marx sneered at
social democrats, if I am not mistaken.

RSMc

Linda Teasley

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:

: Well, kiss my Southern hindquarters, you uppity postgraduate scalawag son
: of a b****!

Stacy, that is an off-the-wall, inappropriate, and embarrassing
remark. It diminishes your argument, which is that Fogel and Engerman
have NOT been discredited, just argued with, and that kind of
intemperance just closes out discussion.

Linda T.
--
Five pelican bedecked battle flags began to flap. . . three thousand
men stepped off on the left foot. With strict cadence, ninety paces per
minute, a forest of burnished steel paraded up the hill.
Winchester --- 25 May 1862

steven f miller

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

RStacy2229 (rstac...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <50cbim$h...@dailyplanet.wam.umd.edu>, sfmi...@wam.umd.edu

: (steven f miller) writes:
: QUOTING