Myths of American Slavery

Rating:
Summary: Yeah right, whatever...
Review: Alot of people will say that anything contrary to what they already know to be history, has to be wrong, and they'll listen to some guy who probably didn't do to hot in school himself, and who's oppinion is far to biased, and he tries to put some of the blame on the north. Fact of the matter is that the south succeeded, therefore they were no longer, from the south's point of view, apart of the union, and the south attacked the north first, so I have no sympathy for the south. I was born and raised in the south, and I can bad mouth it if I please. The south was wrong, slavery was wrong, both parties may be guilty, but the south's slave owners were to afraid that they'd have to end up getting off there lazy butts and picking there own cotton. There selfishness led to the Civil War. Slavery is wrong, therefore the south was wrong. End of discussion, let's get off of it and move on.

Rating:
Summary: Time to open our eyes
Review: As early as elementary school we are taught the war was fought over the "peculiar institution." Unfortunately this falsehood is accepted for a number of reasons 1.) It fits our soundbite intellects because it's a short, simple explanation 2.) It's gratifying to the guilt complex of the liberal establishment in academia 3.) It glorifies our desire to make our government an idol worthy of our worship and service 4.) It ennobles the real father of our American empire, Abraham Lincoln
UNFORTUNATELY IT IS NOT TRUE
Irish-born Confederate General Patrick Cleburne said during the war, "If the South should lose, it means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers, will be impressed by all of the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."
This is certainly the case now. Northern revisionists have distorted the causes for which the southern soldier fought and died during the horrible conflict. In an attempt to justify and cover up the North's true motives for waging the war they have indoctrinated young students in the South with a biased and often inaccurate account of the War Between the States. The war was not fought for the perpetuation or emancipation of slaves. The conflict was a struggle between those who desired a confederation of independent and autonomous states to those who desired a strong federal government. Southerners only desired the rights which had been penned by their forefathers in the constitution. The southern soldier fought not to retain their slaves (93% of southerners owned no slaves at the start of the war), but for their independence. They believed they had the right to secede. Each state had of its own free will entered the Union. Should it not, if so desired, have the right to withdraw also. And, after all, had not America seceded from Britain?
The Declaration of Independence states that when the government ceases to draw its power from the consent of the governed that, "...it is the right of the people to abolish it, and to institute a new government..."

By 1861 the South was contributing 80% of the country's revenue through trade with Britian and recieving next to nothing in return. This, and the South's ever slipping grip on states' rights was what inspired the South to fight for its independenece. Now that we have covered the TRUE reasons for the War Between the States, lets look at a few facts...

1.) As mentioned earlier 93% of southern families owned no slaves at the outbreak of the war.
2.) Lincoln, in his inaugural address and throughout the war, stated that he had no desire to free the slaves and he felt he had, "no lawful right to do so." (inaugural speech)
3.) Were the slave states remaining in the Union fighting to abolish slavery, even as it flourished within their own borders?

3.) What slaves did the Emancipation Proclamation free? Hmmm...the slaves in the states of rebellion! Did Lincoln really expect the Confederacy to free the slave because he told them to? Why did he choose not to free the slaves in the territories? It was a shrewd political move to incite slave rebellions in the South and to discourage Europe from providing aid to the South.
4.) The glorious Unioin general U.S. Grant, and future president, owned slaves until the end of the war. He said concerning the war, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
5.) After Lincoln's issue of the Emancipation Proclamation, whole regiments like the 101st Illinois refused to fight. Enlistments went down, desertions went up, and northerners were furious at Lincoln (emancipation meant millions of slaves would come north!).
6.) Modern historians now estimate that 13,000 blacks saw combat in the Confederate army. Thousands more served as cooks, teamsters, and body servants. Are we to believe that these men would fight to preserve the institution that kept them in bondage?

I could go on and on and refute the pittiful arguments that claim the war was fought over slavery. You have to take the responsibility to read and learn for yourself. Please don't take my word for it! Research the causes for yourself and read about black confederates. Don't be misled by ignorant people who have little knowledge or understanding of the war and its causes!

Rating:
Summary: Time to open our eyes
Review: As early as elementary school we are taught the war was fought over the "peculiar institution." Unfortunately this falsehood is accepted for a number of reasons 1.) It fits our soundbite intellects because it's a short, simple explanation 2.) It's gratifying to the guilt complex of the liberal establishment in academia 3.) It glorifies our desire to make our government an idol worthy of our worship and service 4.) It ennobles the real father of our American empire, Abraham Lincoln
UNFORTUNATELY IT IS NOT TRUE
Irish-born Confederate General Patrick Cleburne said during the war, "If the South should lose, it means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers, will be impressed by all of the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision."
This is certainly the case now. Northern revisionists have distorted the causes for which the southern soldier fought and died during the horrible conflict. In an attempt to justify and cover up the North's true motives for waging the war they have indoctrinated young students in the South with a biased and often inaccurate account of the War Between the States. The war was not fought for the perpetuation or emancipation of slaves. The conflict was a struggle between those who desired a confederation of independent and autonomous states to those who desired a strong federal government. Southerners only desired the rights which had been penned by their forefathers in the constitution. The southern soldier fought not to retain their slaves (93% of southerners owned no slaves at the start of the war), but for their independence. They believed they had the right to secede. Each state had of its own free will entered the Union. Should it not, if so desired, have the right to withdraw also. And, after all, had not America seceded from Britain?
The Declaration of Independence states that when the government ceases to draw its power from the consent of the governed that, "...it is the right of the people to abolish it, and to institute a new government..."

By 1861 the South was contributing 80% of the country's revenue through trade with Britian and recieving next to nothing in return. This, and the South's ever slipping grip on states' rights was what inspired the South to fight for its independenece. Now that we have covered the TRUE reasons for the War Between the States, lets look at a few facts...

1.) As mentioned earlier 93% of southern families owned no slaves at the outbreak of the war.
2.) Lincoln, in his inaugural address and throughout the war, stated that he had no desire to free the slaves and he felt he had, "no lawful right to do so." (inaugural speech)
3.) Were the slave states remaining in the Union fighting to abolish slavery, even as it flourished within their own borders?

3.) What slaves did the Emancipation Proclamation free? Hmmm...the slaves in the states of rebellion! Did Lincoln really expect the Confederacy to free the slave because he told them to? Why did he choose not to free the slaves in the territories? It was a shrewd political move to incite slave rebellions in the South and to discourage Europe from providing aid to the South.
4.) The glorious Unioin general U.S. Grant, and future president, owned slaves until the end of the war. He said concerning the war, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
5.) After Lincoln's issue of the Emancipation Proclamation, whole regiments like the 101st Illinois refused to fight. Enlistments went down, desertions went up, and northerners were furious at Lincoln (emancipation meant millions of slaves would come north!).
6.) Modern historians now estimate that 13,000 blacks saw combat in the Confederate army. Thousands more served as cooks, teamsters, and body servants. Are we to believe that these men would fight to preserve the institution that kept them in bondage?

I could go on and on and refute the pittiful arguments that claim the war was fought over slavery. You have to take the responsibility to read and learn for yourself. Please don't take my word for it! Research the causes for yourself and read about black confederates. Don't be misled by ignorant people who have little knowledge or understanding of the war and its causes!

Rating:
Summary: Time to open our eyes
Review: First, everyone must understand that this book is NOT in any way, shape, or form, a defense of slavery. The author, as well as I, is fully against the institution of slavery as it existed in both the Southern and Northern United States.

However, there are myriad falsehoods regarding slavery that are perpetrated by both revisionist historians and by the liberal (and sometimes conservative, unfortunately) establishment. This book attempts to address many of those falsehoods. Some of them are:

1. Slavery was a "Southern" institution. (Actually, most of the slave trade was conducted by Northerners, and Northerners owned slaves too.

2. Slavery was an attempt solely by the white race to subjugate the black race. (Actually, slave owners were white, black, AND red, and slaves themselves were black, white, AND red).

3. The Civil war was waged by the Northerners to defeat slavery, and the Southerners were motivated solely by a desire to protect slavery. (Actually, slavery was not the major cause of the war on either side. "States rights" indeed were the major issue; slavery was merely the trigger issue.)

4. The Northern Abolitionists were motivated by goodwill toward blacks. (Actually, anti-black sentiment and racism was much more widespread in the North than in the South. Slavery was abolished in the North not because of any moral superiority, but primarily because whites wanted to protect jobs for white laborers.)

5. Abraham Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator," was a friend of the black race. (Actually, Lincoln was a racist who believed (and publicly stated this belief) in the superiority of the white race. Lincoln trampled on the Constitution, going so far as to have his political enemies arrested without warrants of any sort, and held in jail without allowing them legal counsel as guaranteed by the Constitution.)

I could go on and on. I HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone even remotely interested in the issue of slavery, whether you're white or black (or any other color). What is really scary is looking at the parallels between the Radical/Northern Abolitionists and the Liberal Establishment of today. The success of each has lead to both political and civil slavery that is rampant even today (the author discusses this too).

Rating:
Summary: Eye-opening book
Review: First, everyone must understand that this book is NOT in any way, shape, or form, a defense of slavery. The author, as well as I, is fully against the institution of slavery as it existed in both the Southern and Northern United States.

However, there are myriad falsehoods regarding slavery that are perpetrated by both revisionist historians and by the liberal (and sometimes conservative, unfortunately) establishment. This book attempts to address many of those falsehoods. Some of them are:

1. Slavery was a "Southern" institution. (Actually, most of the slave trade was conducted by Northerners, and Northerners owned slaves too.

2. Slavery was an attempt solely by the white race to subjugate the black race. (Actually, slave owners were white, black, AND red, and slaves themselves were black, white, AND red).

3. The Civil war was waged by the Northerners to defeat slavery, and the Southerners were motivated solely by a desire to protect slavery. (Actually, slavery was not the major cause of the war on either side. "States rights" indeed were the major issue; slavery was merely the trigger issue.)

4. The Northern Abolitionists were motivated by goodwill toward blacks. (Actually, anti-black sentiment and racism was much more widespread in the North than in the South. Slavery was abolished in the North not because of any moral superiority, but primarily because whites wanted to protect jobs for white laborers.)

5. Abraham Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator," was a friend of the black race. (Actually, Lincoln was a racist who believed (and publicly stated this belief) in the superiority of the white race. Lincoln trampled on the Constitution, going so far as to have his political enemies arrested without warrants of any sort, and held in jail without allowing them legal counsel as guaranteed by the Constitution.)

I could go on and on. I HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone even remotely interested in the issue of slavery, whether you're white or black (or any other color). What is really scary is looking at the parallels between the Radical/Northern Abolitionists and the Liberal Establishment of today. The success of each has lead to both political and civil slavery that is rampant even today (the author discusses this too).

Rating:
Summary: Master Slave
Review: I agree. The Civil War created the foundation for the New Slavery, called Federal Slavery. Modern American slaves are victims to more confiscation than 19th century slaves.

I do not have to agree with all author Kennedy's points. Slavery was certainly a partial cause shown by reading Jefferson Davis's first inaugural speech in the 'new' confederate union. It had slavery all over it. But agreed the primary cause was taxation, likewise with most wars. This history of the world is one group living off the labor of another. I love how Kennedy speaks the truth here.

Even today, we are forced to choose between being a Slave or a Master. Parents, teach your children not to be the Slave. Books like this give profound historical insight. The game never ends.

This book further highlights that the Master & Slave relationship has not, and will not go away until people, black and white, have the courage to leave the modern Federal plantation. When forced, like in the USA, choose the master but embrace liberty. Great book!

Rating:
Summary: Author Fails to Make his point
Review: I am truly sorry that I wasted my money on this book. Rather then take a logical and factual attack against slavery and why slavery was not a primary reason for the American Civil War. The author again like a number of his other books attacks the north by showing how they are just as guilty as the south in slavery and how not everyone in the south had slaves, final in general the North is evil and the south was an innocent country in forming that was viciously oppressed. Instead of attacking the major myths of slavery in the US and showing how it was not a primary reason for slavery, how it was going to be phased out as the industrial revoultion over took the south. The author instead shows that the churches believe in abolition, Lincoln wasn't for freeing the slaves if this could of perserved the union, how supposedly New Englanders funneled money into keeping the slave trade running even after the ban in 1810, and how not that many in the south owned slaves, and how everyone from the ancient Greeks and Romans to some of the Native American tribes in the Great Plains and Southwest kept slaves so slavery is not a new thing. There could of been more to make this a more worthy book to start a serious discussion about the cause and effect of the American Civil War but the book this way is just not it.

Rating:
Summary: An important, eye-opening book
Review: Slavery has received numerous arguments and coverages which have ultimately fostered a series of unjust myths about history, and historical data is used by Kennedy to reveal the truth behind these myths. From the commonly-held misconceptions about the history of slavery (it has existed since prehistoric times and persists today) to the acknowledgment that slavery has been used by all races around the world, Myths Of American Slavery provides an important and iconoclastic coverage which surveys social, political and even religious interactions with slavery issues. An important, eye-opening book.

Rating:
Summary: Are you fools the ones smoking crack now?
Review: Talk about revisionist history! I only bought this claptrap drivel out of curiousity, and boy, did I get good laughs out of this one... It's a great hit at parties, becuz most people can't believe this isn't strictly fiction, satire, or somebody's idea of a bad joke!! Can't stop the yuks when people ask me if anybody really believes this collosal waste of paper and ink... PT Barnum had you idiots in mind - suckers! Go back to your 'parallel universe' where this 'history' really happened. I tried to keep an open mind, but the only response was a near-hernia from doubling over with laughter!! I have no particular love for the black man, no more or less than for any other. I DO, however believe in the truth, as opposed to this incredible farce. Keep up the good work! Life's too serious as it is...
THANKS!

Rating:
Summary: Myths supporting American Empire are defended ruthlessly
Review: This is a fine work that draws hatred because it exposes the hollow myths that underlie both the growth of centralized American Empire and the self-righteous American belief, born of WASP Puritans, that it is appointed by God to purify, with warfare and then welfare, the world of all wrongs, from slavery to 'classism' to tobacco usage to 'insensitivity' toward 'oppressed peoples' to failure to condemn the evil past, etc. ad nauseam.