Customer Reviews

Myths of American Slavery

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

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).

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!

In the illiterate minds of today's rising generation, some of which are represented here, this is indeed startling and explosive news that goes against everything they've been taught. Nevertheless, much of what Kennedy reveals is old hat to "civil war" buffs and historians. (The lesson here is: Never get your facts from a text book.)

When I listen to today's black leaders demanding reparations, I just laugh, but it's a bitter laugh. Just how much would be enough to right the wrongs of American slavery? A hundred dollars per person of black ancestery? How about a thousand? Reparationists never say how much they want; they just say that any amount isn't enough, which leaves everyone in a quandry.

The "Christian" black activists who talk more about reparations and affirmative action than Christ, ignore the Bible's declarations that the children shall not pay for the misdeeds of their forebears. They are among the "vipers" and "hypocrites" who have perverted Christianity.

And by the way, has anyone heard of the Turks, Romans and Greeks, who carried away tens of thousands of people of all colors into slavery? Has anyone heard of Spartacus, the white slave and gladiator? And then there were the white cowboys who wandered off and found themselves doing forced labor at the point of a gun while men on horseback supervised. Then there was forced duty aboard ships. Many a landlubber with a few too many to drink woke up in the holds of ships already at sea.

The authors could have written more about how American slavery compared to other world slavery throughout the ages. The institution was failing in the South because what began to dawn on plantation owners is what's dawned on our greedy corporate heads today. Contracting out the work was cheaper. That way, they didn't have to feed them or look after their medical needs, they didn't have to build quarters in which to house the slaves. And if some of them didn't work hard, they could be fired and replaced with someone else who could.

We also know the complicity of black Africans in selling other tribesmen into slavery. Yada, yada, yada.

The bottom line is that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and a money grubber who believed in extreme taxation for extreme government. When he put his dragon's hand upon the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, the 10th Amendment melted away. The story in this book is only a partial story. I recommend the excellent book, The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo, an Italian-American Yankee who found the roots of America in the Confederacy and the fight for independence.

Buy this book, then read more

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.

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!

Why were business and political leaders in the North so intent on keeping the southern states in the Union? It was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, solely a fiscal matter. The principal source of tax revenue for the federal government before the Civil War was a tariff on imports. There was no income tax, except for one declared unconstitutional after its enactment during the Civil War. Tariffs imposed by the federal government not only accounted for most of the federal budget, they also raised the price of imported goods to a level where the less-efficient manufacturers of the northeast could be competitive. The former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way:

"The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North... the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue."

In March 1861, the New York Evening Post editorialized on this point:
That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

Given the serious financial difficulties the Union would face if the Southern states were a separate republic on its border engaging in duty-free trade with Britain, the Post urged the Union to hold on to its custom houses in the Southern ports and have them continue to collect duty. The Post goes on to say that incoming ships to the "rebel states" that try to evade the North's custom houses should be considered as carrying contraband and be intercepted.

Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical: Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Karl Marx seconded this view:
The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.

The South fought the war for essentially the same reason that the American colonies fought the Revolutionary War. The central grievance of the American colonies in the 18th century was the taxes imposed on them by Britain. Colonists particularly objected to the Stamp Act, which required them to purchase an official British stamp and place it on all documents in order for them to be valid. The colonists also objected to the import tariff that Britain placed on sugar and other goods (the Sugar Act).
After the enactment of what was called the "Tariff of Abomination" in 1828, promoted by Henry Clay, the tax on imports ranged between 20-30%. It rose further in March 1861 when Lincoln, at the start of his presidency, signed the Morrill Tariff into law. This tax was far more onerous than the one forced on the American colonies by Britain in the 18th century.

Suggested Reading
Books
Charles Adams, When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000)
In this book Charles Adams does to our understanding of the Civil War what Copernicus did to our ancestors' understanding of the solar system. The sun does not rotate around the Earth and slavery did not cause the Civil War. Adams presents a compelling case for the true, financial cause of the war. A must read.

Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History of the American Civil War (Chicago: Open Court, 1996)
With extensive documentation and in an erudite fashion, the author shows how the Civil War was, indeed, a disaster for liberty. The bibliographic essays at the end of each chapter all alone are worth the price of the book.

Francis W. Springer, War for What? (Nashville: Bill Coats Ltd., 1990)
A little known but very insightful view of the Civil War published a year before the author died at the age of 92. He puts the African slave trade, import tariffs, the South's two-crop economy, Lincoln, and the true nature of the war into clear focus, anticipating Adams' groundbreaking work by a decade.
David Gordon (Editor), Secession, State & Liberty (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1998)
Eleven articles on secession based on papers presented at a conference on this subject by the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 1995. Those by Donald Livingson, Steven Yates, Murray N. Rothbard, Thomas DiLorenzo, and James Ostrowski are particularly important.

Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream (Chicago: Johnson, 2000)
Bennett debunks the standard view of Lincoln as "the great emancipator." He shows that Lincoln believed Blacks to be an inferior race. Consequently, they could never have equal "political" rights with White people and be given the full prerogatives of citizenship. The author presents irrefutable evidence that Lincoln wanted to have freed Blacks transported, at government expense, out of the country and relocated somewhere else.

Articles
By Thomas J. DiLorenzo:
* "The Great Centralizer: Abraham Lincoln and the War Between the States" (Fall 1998)
* "Lincoln's Economic Legacy" (February 9, 2001)
* "Trade and the Rise of Freedom" (January 31, 2000)
* "Henry Clay: National Socialist" (The Free Market, March 1998)
* "Libertarians and the Confederate Battle Flag"
* "Birth of an Empire" (The Free Market, July 1997)
By Joe Sobran
* "Slavery in Perspective" (May 31, 2001)
* "McCarthyism and Lincolnism" (April 26, 2001)
* "The Ultimate Lincoln" (April 5, 2001)
* "Lincoln with Fangs" (February 8, 2001)
* "Slavery, No; Secession, Yes" (January 16, 2001)
* "How Tyranny Came to America"
By others
* Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., "Genesis of the Civil War" (May 11, 2000)
* Tibor R. Machan, "Rethinking the Civil War" (May 7, 2001)
* Steven Yates, "The Great Struggle: Republic or Empire" (February 3, 2000)

I love this book. For so many years I've always heard and read that my ancestors should have to bear the stain of slavery and I'd always suspected that there was another side to the story.Finally somebody sets the record straight.
Mr. Kennedy writes a well researched book that tells both sides of the story.While not absolving the southern states of any blame he merely points out the part of slavery that you don't read about in your modern 8th grade history books.He also correctly shows that there was much more to the War Between The States than the good guys and the bad guys fighting over freeing slaves.Now I can argue with my Yankee relatives with much more confidence !!!!
Regards, David C. Eason
Lafayette, Louisiana

After decades of listening to the lies of the terrorist minority groups, otherwise known as the "Klan with a tan", finally the truth comes out! And it's about time! Kennedy has the guts to reveal, for the first time in a long time, the actual circumstances of slavery in America! This should be required reading in every one of Mr. Lincoln's Government Schools in the land!

For anyone that thinks that War between 1861-1865 was about slavery and thinks that lincoln was a man of high morale, ethics, and equality, this is a real eye-opener. It reveals well documented facts that disprove the myths, half-truths, and out right lies that we have ALL been taught through the public school systems, Hollywood, and the media. It should be read by people from all states....South, North, East, and West. Both liberals and conservatives should take this book in. Im sure those that that want to discredit this book are the people that do Not want to admit the truth. As others stated, this book in NO WAY defends slavery. It opens the Truth of what the Feds have hid behind for a 140 years. In this day and age, even through the brainwashing it is ludicrous that people are blind enough to think that War was over slavery.....ESPECIALLY when one starts studying the facts. People 'ignorant' to True history still do not want to believe the facts even when their 'facts' do not add up. This book is Not writtin as an uneducated opinion writing. It is a Very well researched and Highly documented work of true history. It should be used to educate people......regardless of where they live, race, or political views. It is a shame this book is Not used in schools....and until State sovereignty is returned, it probably never will. 5 STARS ALL THE WAY. A Must Read For ALL!!

For anyone who has read anything about the war, they will tell you that slavery was not the main reason for the start of the war. Freeing the slaves did not become a major issue until Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation and that was only in the rebellious states, not the border states. It was politics. Was slavery wrong. Of coarse it was. But it was how America had evolved since the signing of the Constitution. The first official documents protecting slavery was written in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. I believe that's in the North. But it was a dieing institution, even in the south. The North did not believe the southern states had the right to voluntarily leave the union, even though the states voluntarily joined the union. And the South wanted to leave over several issues. And to this day, the right for a state to succeed from the union has never been challenged in court. That was the very reason Jeff Davis was simply released from prison and never tried. The Federal government was afraid to bring the issue before a court. Don't be afraid to educate yourself, read a book. But have enough common sense to read more than one on the subject.