A Damning Indictment of the Southern Aristocracy and Slavery

[@joshewing3504]

Having lived down to the Deep South from up north and completed my undergrad in Louisiana, what’s amazing is this guy from Boston could understand anyone from Louisiana without a translator!

[@lifeonthecivilwarresearchtrail]

@@joshewing3504 I imagine he had an accent too!

[@muchmorecoffee]

Thank you Mr. Coddington, for your contribution to this important conversation. Keep up the good work.

[@tonyyelverton92]

Ron I so appreciate your work and dedication.

[@keithwhittington1322]

Truth can hurt and Hepworth exposed the slavers with a strong dose.

[@rsfaeges5298]

What a fascinating channel!

[@rickpaton7538]

This is outstanding!

[@steveschlackman4503]

Another great find.

[@wendolynmutunhu2866]

Excellent lecture, have sent it to every Civil War buff I know, one in Louisiana! Thank you, looking forward to more. It’s a sad era of our history but important to study.

[@richiephillips1541]

Let's add some content. It was also a "sad" fact of the entire human species until the British ended it. It wasn't confined to Louisiana or the South. It was legal in entire history of the USA up until 1865.

[@catherineetter6477]

In 1780 ,Match 1 the PA. Assembly moved to end slavery in the Cmmonwealth. In 1688, April 18 William Penn signed a protest against Negro Slavery.

[@JonJaeden]

@@catherineetter6477 Between 1735 and 1750 Georgia was the only British American colony to attempt to prohibit Black slavery as a matter of public policy. The decision to ban slavery was made by the founders of Georgia, the Trustees.

[@davidanthony4845]

For a blistering portrait of slave culture written by an insider, read Mary Boykin Chesnut's Diary. She describes in depth the shame of every slave-owning household; every plantation-master has full sexual license with female slaves, and his wife knows it and can do nothing. She is surrounded by the half-siblings of her children, with more every year. The inevitable topic at every Southern female social gathering is the sexual conduct of slavemasters in every household but those of the present guests.

[@reallydarlings-se2xf]

This, exactly! Mary C. paints such a vivid, immediate portrait of the time.

[@2ezee2011]

outstanding. thanks for that.

[@stevematthews4489]

A clear eyed picture of what slavery and slave culture was, the feudal society of plantation owners it supported, and the false claims of "honor" used to violently defend it. Even if slave owners cruelly exploited and despised their slaves, the fact that they would rape them, have children by them and then condemn their own children to that cruelty is incredible. You can still hear the morally empty defense of the institution from too many people to this day.

[@vmhutch]

Echoed by some of the apologists for slavery on this comment string.

[@rickpaton7538]

So very true!

[@KeiPyn24]

So all slave owners? All? Even the black and native ones? All? These stories must be exaggerated to promote sentiment. This eye witness must be lying.

[@JamesClark-lw6sw]

Slavery WAS an evil insitution. It was ALSO was an insititution that ALL of the Northern states aided, abetted and PROFITTED FROM for nearly 240 years BEFORE they invaded a legally forned soveriegn foriegn Nation- the CSA in 1861. Those are the facts.Most brain dead Yankee hylocrites cannot deal with them

[@richiephillips1541]

I get attacked for "defending" the South, when in reality what I do is try to expose the morally empty defense of the Union being squeaky clean and free of blame. It's amazing how quickly the morally superior types howl when the ugly truth of at least SOME shared blame is exposed. Slavery was legal is ALL of the USA. Lincoln held deeply racist views. After the war, Ohio passed a law banning blacks from entering their state. I could go on and on, but you get my point. I guess you'd have to be in my Southern shoes to see the annoying hypocrisy I see oh so often.

[@kevinlewallen4778]

Very interesting, good selection!

[@johnhasty3411]

Very educational and interesting.. thanks

[@appnzllr]

I've heard people defend the South by saying that most slaves were treated OK. They also try to say that the Bible has slavery in it. Of course, that's not the point. Slavery in any form is wrong morally, and using the Bible to defend it is reprehensible.

[@richiephillips1541]

I agree, but........... implying that all slave owners were cruel, heartless beasts who had their slaves regularly whipped is simply not true, but that IS the very common implication.

[@akaJackLugar]

Simply because the Bible comments on slavery does not mean that the Bible or God's word embraces and blesses slavery. You will never see that in scripture

[@jacksons1010]

@@akaJackLugar Have you never actually read the Bible? Scripture certainly does condone slavery - the Confederates were not wrong about that. One of many examples: 1 Peter 2:18 "Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

[@akaJackLugar]

@@jacksons1010 Of course I have read the Bible, for.over 25 years and have taken seminary courses as well. You obviously have interpreted it incorrectly.

[@akaJackLugar]

@@jacksons1010 For you to quote that and equate it to God condoning slavery is just pathetic. The whole point of it is be content where you are even though God does not approve of the situation.

[@williamrossetter9430]

Good read, Ron! The south at the time of the CIvil War had an economy based on the immoral slavery. THese people were not free, period. I don't buy revisionist excuses from the south. Glad it was firmly defeated in the end. Hepworth's words are so direct and clear.

[@richiephillips1541]

Don't forget that slavery was legal before, during and shortly after the civil war. The entire country owns the immoral label because of that fact.

[@Mr4autiger]

@@richiephillips1541 no one who follows this channel cares at all about the complexity of history. Simply, north good.... south bad.

[@lewdachris7721]

@@Mr4autigergee I wonder why the people of the UNITED states think the confederacy was bad

[@Mr4autiger]

@@lewdachris7721 south bad, north good. remedial as all get out.

[@peterblum613]

Uh yes, there was a good side and a bad side in the Civil War.

[@davidanthony4845]

@richardjones1836 When Julia Grant inherited a slave on her father's death, Grant freed him. He saw to it that he was legally manumitted and provided with all necessary documents. The man's value on the slave market was equal to at least a year's middle-class income - this at a time when the Grants were struggling desperately. My friends' granddaughter was cheering the destruction of a statue of Grant on the grounds of his having been a slaveholder. I said ' Everyone here who hasn't given up a years' salary to make someone else free raise your hand. Get 'em up you squids ! '

[@andywindes4968]

These first hand accounts pack a great punch.

[@timdyer3551]

Interesting man

[@andrewbesso4257]

I can think of a few names of people who need to hear this.

[@richardjones8236]

I'm just wondering what George had to write in regard to Ulysses Grant's wife, a slave owner who refused to free her slaves. It's much easier to bash a defeated Southern culture rather than one's own boss.

[@carlmally6292]

That is absolutely untrue. She held no slaves personally and Grant freed the one slave he had inherited through her prior to the war. Her family did hold slaves but neither of the Grant's had any say over that. Why do you defend a "culture" of traitors and slavedrivers?

[@DP12356]

Fantastic reading. Thank you.

[@5kehhn]

Things haven't changed. A liar is a liar.

[@williamjones4716]

I've often wanted to explore more the circumstances of the southern aristocarcy sending their sons to European universities during the circa bellum years to avoid the anti-slavery sentiment and rhetoric of northern universities, but what affect if any did those European universities have upon these heirs apparent to southern plantations? I understand a good number of these young men went to the University of Heidelberg, which had a 19th century reputation for being a party school.

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

A party school in Prussia? The Kool Aide must taste great!

[@oldgeezerproductions]

Unless I am greatly mistaken, the University that The Student Prince attended was indeed Heidelberg. Drink! Drink! Let the toast start! May young hearts never part! Drink! Drink! Drink! Let every true lover salute his sweetheart! Sure sounds like a fun party school to me.

[@2011Matz]

Bravo!!!

[@JonJaeden]

I'm curious to know more about the Unitarian Hepworth embracing Trinitarianism.

[@joannflanagan3557]

I'd like to read his books. They're probabley out of print though.

[@kevinlewallen4778]

The full text of "The Whip, Hoe, and Sword" is available free on Google Books.

[@alansewell7810]

A sidebar is that when the Civil War broke out, future Union general William T. Sherman was Commandant of Louisiana's State Military Academy. He liked the slave owning elite, and vice versa. Louisiana's Governor offered Sherman command of the state armies being raised to fight for the Confederacy, which of course Sherman declined. Sherman held the racist views common at that time that slavery was the proper relationship between whites and blacks. He did advise the Louisianans to modify it, such that marriage and children in slave families should be recognized, so that husbands, wives, and children should not be sold apart. The most inhuman aspect of slavery must have been selling a man's wife and children to distant owners, that he had no means to protect his family against. That is treating human beings like livestock animals, a sin against humanity and God. Anyway, it's interesting that Sherman commanded Louisiana's Military Academy when the war started.

[@williamjones4716]

Careful what you call sin, because the Bible thumpers of the period were quoting selective scripture to justify their status and horrid practices, just as the most rabid do today.

[@richiephillips1541]

@@williamjones4716 Bible thumpers? Who else do you hate on?

[@akaJackLugar]

Have great respect for Sherman as a general but I have never respected him as a man. His view on blacks and slavery in general and the way he would openly criticize Grant while he was president that's always led me to be disappointed in his character.

[@charlesk2270]

@@akaJackLugar You view a 19th century man (Sherman) through 21st century lens. Had you lived in Sherman's time You would have a different view.

[@akaJackLugar]

@@charlesk2270 perhaps

[@matthewsatalic7767]

Just read Frederick law Olmsted s book on his tour thru the South right before the war.

[@gmatgmat]

Thank you. Chasing the dollar like that corrupts the soul and workers today know the lengths businesses and those that seek to benefit in it will step on those below them to gain favor.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

The North took advantage of the Irish and the working poor.

[@JonJaeden]

Slavery was perfectly legal and had been so since 1619 ... even earlier if you count Spain's control of Florida. It had been lawfully practiced in all 13 of the original colonies. Those Northern colonies -- and later, states -- that exercised their sovereignty to outlaw slavery within their borders (to their credit), still joined the national covenant recognizing slavery's legality when binding themselves to the U.S. Constitution in 1788. While those anti-slavery states may have soothed their consciences with the common notion the institution was on the wane, the invention of the cotton gin six years later destroyed that illusion and made them voluntary partners in slavery's next 70 years of misery. One wonders why, if they were so morally offended, they didn't secede from their tainted union. But it wasn't misery for those Northern states. Slave-based King Cotton grew to provide 59 percent of U.S. exports, and the wealth that produced was shared. New York City financial institutions, Connecticut insurance companies, Massachusetts and Rhode Island shipping and textile interests were profiting from King Cotton, and that cotton was picked by slave labor. No one wanted to kill the golden goose. There was no serious attempt by Northern anti-slave states to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban slavery. But there were serious attempts by the North to make certain only the fruit of black-slave labor -- but not free blacks themselves -- came into their states. The Northwest Territory -- that area north of the Ohio River -- had been declared "free" prior to the Constitution's ratification, but the states formed there took it up a notch. Ohio, Indiana and Illinois -- Land of Lincoln -- either banned free blacks outright in their constitutions or made laws so onerous that residing in those states was near-impossible. “In the State where I live we do not like Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike. As my friend from Indiana (Mr. Wright) said yesterday, ‘The whole people of the Northwestern States are, for reasons, whether correct or not, opposed to having many Negroes among them, and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation of nearly all the Northwestern States.'" -- Ohio Senator John Sherman, brother of William Tecumseh Sherman, April 2, 1862. "Black Codes" were also used in New York and Connecticut to limit residence and competition by cheap free-black labor. So, let's pause here and consider the situation. Slavery, on the eve of the War for Southern Independence, has been part of the economy for at least 240 years. It is embedded in the Constitution, to which all parties are equal partners. Although the Constitution provides for its own amendment, no effort has been made to do so. Everyone's benefitting financially. And the North, where many rightfully find slavery odious, don't want those same black people they claim to care about to live among them and change their lives. Call it the "Martha's Vineyard Syndrome." Indeed, had millions of Southern slaves been suddenly emancipated, where were they to live? How were they to earn their bread? Why would they remain in the South ... in the land of their captivity? Why would they not look to the sky and follow the Drinking Gourd to live in the "free states" or the Western Territories? Consider Mississippi and Wisconsin. Both had similar-size populations in 1860. Wisconsin was 0.15 percent free black. Mississippi was 55.18 percent slave. Northerners knew what emancipation could mean, and their goal was to keep blacks isolated to the South -- much like confining Native Americans to reservations -- while leaving the rest of the nation to the white man. * “Confine the Negro to the smallest possible area, hem him in, coup him up, sloth him off, preserve just so much of North America as is possible for the white man and to free institutions.“ -- The Atlantic Monthly. * “Keeping slaves out of the West will confine the Negro to the South.” -- Abolitionist Charles Elliot of Massachusetts. * “I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus. Slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it … that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the war, it hated the abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale.” Charles Dickens, 1862. The South did not need to secede nor did it need its independence from the United States in order to keep or protect slavery. The institution was under no legal threat: * Read the 1860 GOP platform, section four; it endorsed states rights on the question of slavery. No threat here. * In his 1861 Inaugural Address, Lincoln, after saying he had neither the intent nor authority to interfere with slavery, endorsed the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, passed with Northern votes and signed just two days before by President Buchanan. It provided for slavery in perpetuity in the South and removed Congress' authority to do anything to regulate the institution. Meant to tempt the first seven seceded states back into the Union, it failed. The South refused to take the bait in favor of its own independence, just as their great-grandfathers had in 1776. No threat to slavery here. * On July 25, 1861, following the North's butt-whipping at First Manassas (Bull Run), Congress passed, almost unanimously, the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution, stating the war was fought not for "overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States," but to "defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union." No threat to slavery here. * Lincoln's much-heralded Emancipation Proclamation freed virtually no one. Excluded from this decree of freedom were slaves still owned in the North, slaves in the border states under Lincoln's control, slaves in the South in areas now under the control of the Union Army -- particularly New Orleans and most of Louisiana -- all during Rev. Hepworth's tenure there. Only slaves within the Confederacy where Lincoln had no control were "emancipated." But here's the dirty secret -- if the South would cease hostilities before Jan. 1, 1863, it would then be under Union control and its slaves, too, would be exempt from Lincoln's "virtual emancipation." Nothing would change -- no harm, no foul, tow that barge, lift that bale! * As the North's destructive juggernaut continued through the South, slaves -- no longer tied to the land -- became a burden. They were classified, not as persons, but as contraband and held in detention as such. Efforts to move them to Northern states for their safety were vehemently resisted -- Martha's Vineyard-style -- even by radical abolitionsists like Thaddeus Stevens. It doesn't sound like "freeing the slaves" was the Northern motivation. * As historian Jim Downs shows in his book, "Sick from Freedom," the chaotic summary emancipation of slaves by the advancing Northern army, destroying the infrastructure of the South and foraging off the same land, resulted in hundreds of thousands of blacks dying from disease and hunger. As many as a quarter of the four million freed slaves, he estimates, died or suffered from illness between 1862 and 1870. This was more a threat to the slaves themselves than a threat to the institution. The tragic irony is General Grant's pre-war military reputation was built in the Mexican War where he served as quartermaster, conveying food, medicine, ammuniton and equipment over long distances through hostile territory to supply troops and accomplish the mission. If "freeing the slaves" was the mission, his skills were not used here. * Finally, the North, with no more pesky Southerners in Congress, didn't even get around to passing the 13th Amendment ending slavery until three months before Lee surrendered at Appomattox. It did not become the law of the land until December 1865, ending slavery North AND South, at the SAME time. Someone must not have gotten the memo that "the South was fighting to keep slavery." * And dare I add, the last U.S. slaver captured by the U.S. Navy was taken at the mouth of the Congo River with over 900 souls chained below. The "Nightinggale," out of Rev. Hepworth's Boston, was seized and its captives freed less than two weeks after hostilities began at Fort Sumter, S.C. Perhaps the good reverend should have practiced his gifts of observation at home. Simply put, the South did not secede to keep slavery because it didn't need to. It fought for its independence from the North which was not abiding by agreements made in the Constitution and, ultimately, because it was invaded.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

A fair number of planters in North and South Carolina decided that slavery's days were numbered after McCormick invented his mechanical reaper. They sold their plantations and moved with their slaves to East Texas. It was still considered to be on the frontier so was sparsely populated. The planters figured their slaves would be safer there living in their own communities when slavery ended.

[@lauratietjen1]

Interesting information but you fail to recognize the idiocy of the South’s continued lies about the Lost Cause and their modern day racist assault on free and fair elections. The Southern Baptists still use religion to demonize “others”.

[@chipthomas4169]

Good to read something by someone who actually READS history, not merely skims it! Thank you, sir!

[@dennisfaulkner5470]

Thanks Harvey Whimpleman:- Downtown Bruno 😅😂

[@billf7062]

Hypocrisy thrives where dishonest fortunes are made. Northern industrialists didn’t need slaves; abuse of immigrants was rampant. During this era, a child working in a mill in Massachusetts was a slave for all intents and purposes. Society has improved since this era but hypocrisy thrives in our own time driven by gross economic injustice. The war on human ego that justifies greed continues.

[@tterb777]

That’s a big time stretch

[@mikehillas]

Did the Emancipation Proclamation not cover that part of Louisiana already occupied by the Union army?

[@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244]

Good observation. When Lincoln made this proclamation, there were approximately 450,000 slaves under Federal control, either in border Union states or in occupied territories such as Louisiana. Lincoln did not free them. His real purpose was to cause uprisings inside the CSA. This did not occur. Read my extensive comment below. The report of Rev. Hughes is largely pure propaganda. Detailed studies of the conditions of the slaves in the Antebellum South contradict it solidly. For one thing, how could a family of seven ever hope to hold a dozen, let alone hundreds of slaves? (See - "Time on the Cross - The Economics of Negro Slavery," Fogel and Engerman, "Roll Jordan Roll - The World the Slaves Created," Prof. E. Genoveese, "Lincoln's Marxists," Benson and Kennedy," etc.)

[@JonJaeden]

Southern territory under Federal control was exempt from the Proclamation. Such areas were considered no longer in rebellion. Lincoln did not have the constitutional authority to "free the slaves." His authority to issue the Proclamation rested on his role as commander in chief of the Army during a "rebellion." It was like military confiscation of the enemy's property. So, if you owned a slave in New Orleans under Federal occupation, he stayed a slave, because that part of Louisiana was no longer in rebellion. If you owned a slave in Alabama, he remained a slave as well because Lincoln's Proclamation had no legal authority in another nation.

[@cedricgist7614]

Decades ago, I came across a speech supposedly made by a William Lynch to plantation owners in Virginia, I believe. In brief, the message was a blueprint for managing slaves, using several means of dividing the slaves on the basis of skin complexion, assigned work locations, and special incentives granted to one group or another. Because it was published in a phone book, I accepted it as a discovery finally brought to light. It appears I was wrong. From the beginning, I had suspicions about a speech about controlling slaves delivered by a man surnamed, "Lynch." Still, I dismissed it as a coincidence and went for many years thinking it was true. One thing I give former President Trump credit for is highlighting, "fake news." I mention this because your video presents an account that I have reason to accept as true. Humans lie and are good at spinning information and situations to their advantage. I cannot see this channel intending to exaggerate or mislead. And I believe a chaplain would strive to report the truth, just as a priest who came to the New World on a subsequent expedition with Columbus reported how the crewmen killed Haitian natives. Thank you for this exposition.

[@tomgooch1422]

The slaves existed because Reverend Hepworth's noble Boston friends and neighbors shared the value of their production. A northern and European embargo would have destroyed their value for all without a shot being fired. None was attempted; they were just laws favoring northern merchant interests by taxing cotton exports overseas.

[@Sodbusterrod]

It’s the Bostonian’s (and European’s) fault for slavery? Would the embargo have passed Congress to become law? It would have to overcome a stalemated Congress created by the Missouri Compromise, would it not?What about the same Bostonians who took responsibility for and action against slavery by banning it in their home states/colony? Could not the noble, Christian, gentleman planters have followed the Bostonian’s behavior? Or combined to lead those Bostonians in the embargo? Also I understand the logic of the argument. I beat my dog and the person ultimately responsible is the one who did not tax me from being an abuser.

[@cht2162]

@@Sodbusterrod They shoot horses, don't they!?

[@Sodbusterrod]

@@cht2162 Pentobarbitol is preferred.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

​@@SodbusterrodSlavery wasn't allowed in the English colonies until the 1650's due to a labor shortage. The first colony to legalize owning African slaves was Massachusetts.

[@Sodbusterrod]

@@billwilson-es5yn … and the first to abolish it.

[@tomjarrett2477]

Read: Complicity How the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Slavery.

[@carlmally6292]

Read Sleaze, Laziness and Arrogance: How the Lazysouthern People Stole the Work of Others.

[@waynelayton8568]

That voice though

[@davidlentz1946]

There is absolutely no question that slavery is terrible and many slaves suffered horribly. However a few important things to note. This gentlemen was biased on the subject to begin with and had an obvious antislavery mission and was out looking for evidence to prove his point. Moreover, he points to just one specific encounter as being evidence of universal Southern mistreatment of slaves. (I’m not arguing that whippings etc weren’t widespread). But there is often a tendency for zealots such as this gentlemen to overstate the case. But again, there’ no doubt that mistreatment was fairly widespread. Secondly: it’s easy for someone from another part of the country to criticize folks from a different part of the country,[ whose economy is, unlike the critic’s, agrarian and has, for centuries ( in a worldwide context) and decades in America] been legal-that what they do is immoral and wrong-when it never had been in the past. Freeing the slaves would not only have been economically ruinous for plantation owners (unless every other owner also freed his slaves) but, often overlooked, it would have completely changed the political power structure of every Southern State. Why? Putting the dramatic economic consequence of actually paying former slaves aside for a second, it’s because, all of a sudden, there would a large number of Black voters who could swing the fate and fortune of every politician around and, perhaps worse, brought about the election of quite possibly a lot of vengeful Black politicians-a very scary thought for Southern plantation owners. The whole political power structure of every Southern state would have been dramatically changed. Moreover, and again, often overlooked.is the Three-Fifths Compromise agreed upon during our country’s founding during negotiations to enact our Constitution and which in law should have been looked upon as a Constitutional guarantee that slavery would always remain legal unless the Constitution itself was amended to disallow it. In short, Southerner’s had a right to be deeply offended by Northern insistence on abolishing slavery. George McClellan, Commander of the (Union’s) Army of the Potomac, and 1864 candidate for President of the United States himself did not oppose slavery. Moreover, the Emancipation Proclamation did not outlaw slavery everywhere, and in fact, I believe allowed it to remain in effect in some areas that elected not to secede from the Union. So, Lincoln and the Yankees weren’t so holy themselves when push came to shove. The bottom line is that while slavery is indeed horrible and wicked, if some guy from some other part of the country comes into my state and wags his finger at me telling me to do away with something that’s always been legal and upon which my livelihood depends, I’d point my pistol in his face as well and tell him to skedaddle back to Boston while he still has a mouth to preach with. All of which is to say that there, in fact, was also a huge state’s rights issue involved. The Constitution had no provision prohibiting secession by the States. The Union was in fact a voluntary association of States who, from a legal perspective, should have been allowed to secede if they wanted. From a legal perspective, the South’s argument was much stronger than the North’s. In fact, the Lincoln and the Yankees, at the beginning of the War, were fighting to preserve the Union-not to abolish slavery. But no question, slavery was and is terrible.

[@rumbaughsteven5577]

I believe Lincoln accepted that states could secede. He maintained that they couldn’t confiscate Federal property when they did. Ft Sumpter was Federal property and when the people of South Carolina fired on the fort, it started the war.

[@JonJaeden]

@@rumbaughsteven5577 He opposed secession. Emissaries from the newly declared CSA were in Washington, D.C., trying to meet with Lincoln to arrange for compensation for Federal properties in the new Southern nation when Lincoln sent resupply ships to Charleston Harbor to fortify Fort Sumter.

[@richiephillips1541]

An interesting note: I read a letter written about an event at a post war plantation that was being run by a paid Union overseer. A former slave, one of many former slaves forced to work at a plantation by the US authorities, was causing trouble and the overseer contacted the local Union military occupation commander who sent Union troops to the plantation to punish the unruly former slave. All of the plantation hands were brought in to watch the poor former slave get tied to a post, stripped of his clothing and harshly whipped by a Union soldier. Events like that were and still are kept conveniently quiet for obvious reasons. Now I'll wait for the attacks on me from the moral high road types to call me a defender of the lost cause, or some silly crud like that. Just for pointing out a sliver of ugly truth.

[@jacksons1010]

History is rife with ugly truths, but such individual events do not belie the overarching progress of the nation. There certainly were racists wearing blue uniforms, and actions such as this were criminal under the law at that time. That's the real difference - it was a crime then, when it had not been before.

[@JonJaeden]

Slaves in Southern areas that came under Federal control were officially considered "contraband."

[@markbryant9806]

Not all northern soldiers agreed with emancipating the slaves. There were whole Union regiments that resigned upon hearing of the Emancipation Proclamation. There is an account of Kentucky Union troops firing on a regiment of newly enlisted Black soldiers who came marching into camp in new uniforms and rifles while the white soldiers were ill equipped. It is referred to as the Battle of Louisa. There were numerous Union desertions the next day.

[@russellcameronthomas2116]

Beyond the "interesting note", what is your point? Are you are saying that there are "ugly truths" everywhere? Are you are saying that the existence of "ugly truths" imply that we can make *no* broader value judgments about what sort of society is better or worse?

[@Tadadsky]

Source?

[@tomjones2202]

Thanks for sharing, to even those who to this day wont listen to truth.! Suggestion, " Twelve Years a Slave" Solomon Northup.

[@margaretgarls153]

I am researching my Southern ancestors and do not know how they treated the enslaved people. I haven't found contemporary accounts or journals, just census schedules and bequests in wills. Of course, slavery was the exploitation of the enslaved people and no defense is acceptable. However, I judge these people in the historical context of their lives. I have ancestors who lived in Puritan Massachusetts during the Salem Witch Trials, and they thought their neighbors were witches. I feel like it is hard to judge our ancestors in the context of our lives since they were born in different centuries and under different circumstances.

[@alicefreist318]

Hmmmm. No offense, but I disagree. I've never read anyone's personal account of slavery that does not admit guilt on some level. To feel guilt requires self-awareness of wrongdoing. Diaries of the upperclasses wherein owners justify the system and it's cruelty? There is no way they didn't know that system was wrong. They simultaneously excluded themselves from judgement, choosing to engage in self-delusion. "It's the way of the world", or "even the bible accepts slavery!", or "they are like children and they are family to us!" Pure guilty rationalization. Pure bullshit.

[@monumentofwonders]

Great tract. So glad that this is posted. Maybe Ron DeSanctus should hear this. The lies continue.

[@Mr4autiger]

you are a know nothing.

[@conradnelson5283]

We are all slaves to something, but can leave when we wish. Modern slavery is just as reprehensible as old pre-Civil War slavery. Hard to believe it made a comeback.

[@johnbeechy]

'sum 1', not some Thing. God of the dark skinned authored Bible does not enslave whites, rather the whites enslaved themselves to a Bible that was written by black men that not only killed every white man they ever met, but at the same time the authors of the Bible banned whites from reading their words. King james stole the words so as to enslave his white peasants. why did the white man not use white man created gods of rome/greece, most of which were older than the dark skinned man created God of Judaism. Judaism was not as old as the non atheist greeks/romans. slavery to low wages is 'what is going on' (shout out to marvin gaye). here r some basic facts from a grade 10 business course. 1. the economy is the GDP, as reported by the media/fox news included. 2. no tax cut ever raised the gross wages, which r the key variable inside the GDP formula, taught in gr 10 3. Profits never go into the GDP, as per the formula. even with record profits, there is no economic growth. and profits lead to recessions. 4. a recession is 6 months of negative GDP. every single GOP President since Hoover has had at least one recession (Hoover had a depression), with gwbush having two recessions in less than 8 yrs. reagan had the longest and deepest recession lasting 18 months. Trades People are not really slaves. WE can move, without papers, and make money from more than one client in the usa, the employer must pay the healthcare costs, so that does enslave them that do not care what they eat, drink, live near by (mercury in the water tables). The majority of the GOP voters r not educated enough to know they r slaves to the shareholder class. the shareholder class used to only be known as the Military Industrial Complex, but since gwbush let 2 mn+ jobs move to red commie china, the shareholder class is much larger now. the shareholders will never share any of the profits with any slave, as it is not even allowed as per the rules o GAAP: Matching Principle if u want to free the slaves, teach them business content. NO more Gym classes. ban gym but for a Break/Spare. do not grade bodies for none of the gym class grades will ever lead a body to a higher gross wage. the GDP only really moves up due to the increase in more gross wages, either by hiring more low waged slaves or by giving other slaves a raise in gross wages. u can wish in one hand and pray in the other. the God of the dark skinned men will not save a dumb white slave from being stew-pid. wishing is like using magic, which is allowed under the Bible' teachings, but white men really can not conjure as WELL as they want to. // good luck with ending what ever type of enslavement God had allowed u to endure. allowed, not forced upon. i can not speak to what u did in a prior lifetime, but u can do a past life regression and know why u r where u r in this lifetime. the GOP are all about the enslavement of the american white man. selling/forcing the 10 Cs of the dark skinned racist moses upon all texans is not proper, give the author of the 10Cs never wanted whites to see, nor use his 10 Cs. using the words of a racist without their permission, to enslave whites is not Righteous // the hoax helped kill more americans than imagined all without charges, but most of the dead were just lower paid slaves. ex: Herman Cain and Luke Letlow were masters of the many slaves. and both wanted and did enslave many whites to low wages. Take care, Good Luck and God (of the dark skinned men) Bless. heck, i am in Good with their God and i can afford to offer such blessings to intelligent men.

[@owensomers8572]

Is it though? Do you run the risk of being maimed, mutilated, or burned alive by your benevolent master if you are caught running away?

[@williamjones4716]

However iniquitous you may find trends in the modern labor market it has yet to ever cross the line into chattel slavery.

[@michaelmccotter4293]

Ask the Branch Davidian Cult Men women and children Bill Clinton murdered by flame throwing tanks. How about the day care workers and children that died in the Federal Building that our corrupt FBI blew up as a false flag operation to justify gun laws they want to enact to disarm us? How about the 3 towers in New York the elite imploded to justify a law they had crafted 11 years previously that you know is called" the Patriot act" which was rushed to be passed soon after 9-11. To be sure, you are a slave to an evil lie. ​@@owensomers8572

[@tedr.5978]

Slavery is one person taking freedom away from another person. That is more reprehensible then anything you want to call "modern slavery".

[@philbrown6787]

All through the south many a poor southern white knew all too well of the “benevolent” aristocracy too and joined the Union cause. They hated that landed gentry arrogance

[@Mr4autiger]

yea? I just read a book called "scots irish in the carolina's" and literally every reference to the civil war era is of these poor southern whites siding with the csa.

[@JonJaeden]

@@Mr4autiger Invasion does that.

[@billwilson-es5yn]

A good number didn't support either side so armed their slaves to help keep out CSA and Federal troops sent out to confiscate crops and horses.

[@Mr4autiger]

@@billwilson-es5yn I am fine with avoiding organized bloodlettings.

[@clarkbuckner4900]

Not getting political during this election season are you?

[@Chris-ut6eq]

👍

[@robbrown4621]

The sad part about this video is that truly nothing has changed in MAGA world in the South. If given the opportunity, they would return to the world of 1860 without any remorse. Southerners who support MAGA are the offspring of those who fought for the Confederacy and for that which the Confederacy stood. Poorly educated people make poorly educated decisions. And they are so proud of what they call Southern culture. Every time I see a Confederate flag, I am disgusted. God bless the United States of America and the Union men who fought and died to free those who were enslaved by Southern white men.

[@JonJaeden]

You forgot to bless those Union men who, after devastating the South, went west to conduct genocide against Native Americans.

[@Deepocean567]

You have listened to too many people talking out of their ass

[@Deepocean567]

It doesn't surprise me how some people think they're on the right side of History like this dumbass they think they could never be wrong and they always bend over for anything this country tells them to do poor sheep

[@billwilson-es5yn]

Southern Blacks laugh at those living in Northern welfare plantations that are whining about illegals getting freebies instead of them.

[@thomasarcher4034]

No doubt, a southern preacher touring the factories and sweat shops of the north, upon witnessing the treatment of Irish labor would be equally as indignant.

[@markfrumkin3230]

I don’t think so.

[@stevenmqcueen7576]

Are you also an apologist for Naziism, Communism and other forms of tyranny, or is it only slavery that you admire?

[@williamrossetter9430]

Perhaps, but really? The South linked itself to an immoral practice of slavery. I don't see that relationship. An Irish immigrant could switch jobs, no matter what, he was not literally a slave as in the backwards south.

[@edwil111]

whippings? Sold your kids to another factory (without asking) ? Huh? WTF?

[@owensomers8572]

And the abuses of some (not all) factory workers (mostly not Irish, not that it matters), was the catalyst for labor protections and trade unions, which came about with some violence, but without secession or total war. But go ahead and suggest there were equivalencies if it assuages your guilt.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

Apparently, some still find slavery acceptable.

[@richiephillips1541]

Yes, in Africa and the Far East today. Saying that about the comments here is quite silly.

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

@@richiephillips1541 You meant Middle East? Where slavery was sometimes legal just few decades ago?

[@marycahill546]

The plantation owners are similar to today's business owners. They pay as little as posible to employees and get rich from the labour of others. Yes, an owner does deserve some profit given how he risks his own capital, and for his management know how to keep the company viable -- this should not be in the millions of dollars. Then the multimillionaires, "self made" or not, bequeth their excessive profits to keep their families rich, or establish a foundation to glorify their own name when actually it's the workers who made the money.

[@stevenmqcueen7576]

Slavery is nothing like the modern employer-employee relationship. By claiming that it is, you elevate the former to a mere alternative employment arrangement and falsely portray the other as evil. BTW, how did you come upon the knowledge of the “correct” amount of profit to which a business is entitled? Are you a disciple of Marx and Engels or of Lenin and Stalin?

[@williamrossetter9430]

Your words are so eloquent and true. So be it, the curses of our very humanity!

[@williamrossetter9430]

​@@stevenmqcueen7576dude, have you studied Marx and Engels?? BTW, some of us went the extra mile back in college to do so. A better arguement would be that Marx and Engels never studied what motivated the individual to improve their livelihood. There is no individual in communism, which by the way is extreme socialism. Teach that to the MAGA nation!

[@williamjones4716]

Of course southern plantations were not incorporated and publically traded companies as was often the case with mills and factories in the north, there simply were no stockholders to answer to for fluctuations in profit or labor abuses. Rather the plantations were family businesses, which did only what was right in their own eyes, not unlike a certain political candidate of our times and his close-hold family business.

[@Deepocean567]

Only five Confederate States produced declarations of causes, which were Georgia, Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Florida (draft, not published). The summation of issues includes - Unconstitutional dereliction in regards acting to protect the domestic peace (causing sectional divide and inviting servile insurrection - incendiary publications, John Brown raid etc...), oppression / coercion / military subjugation of the Confederate States, unconstitutional dereliction in regards to the enforcement of the fugitive slave law, unconstitutional inequitable restriction on slave owners taking their slave property into the territories, financial protectionism of northern industry / interests at expense of the south, anti slavery sentiment of the Republican Party, a influential portion of whom were calling for an end to the institution of slavery immediately and without compensation (interfering with institutions of other states, and seeking not to elevate or support the slaves, but to destroy slavery, without providing a better condition). None of the ordinances of secession refer SPECIFICALLY to slavery. However, INDIRECT references that might possibly, at best, be interpreted as referring to the institution of slavery are included in the ordinances for Alabama (domestic institutions), Texas (interests and property of Texas and slaveholding states), and Kentucky (northern prejudice and lack of protection to the slaveholding states). The institution of slavery is not referred to in the ordinances of secession for Florida, Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia (slaveholding states), Tennessee, and Missouri. In addition to the declarations, Alabama sent a letter to the Governor of Kentucky detailing issues around slavery including fears of servile insurrection. Interestingly, Alabama’s constitution banned protectionist tariffs, so this was clearly an important issue as well. Louisiana’s address to the Texas secession convention does detail a desire to perpetuate slavery, but also cites tyrannical despotism. South Carolina’s address to other slaveholding nations, refers very unequivocally and specifically to unfair taxation, tariffs, spending to the benefit of the north at the expense of the south, and confirming state sovereignty whilst also referring to issues in regard to slavery. So, yes, issues in connection with slavery we’re an important component of the first states to secede, but they were hardly the only reason. Furthermore, slavery was both lawful and protected under the constitution. It was for the individual states to decide on their institutions, without interference from a sectional party, whose rise to power and sectional agitation only served to quash southern abolition efforts. Big point: The upper southern states Va, Tenn, NC, and Ark only seceded after Lincoln’s call to arms. (Nothing to do with slavery). The issues detailed in the secession documents can all be grouped under the heading of constitutional infidelity. A compact broken! Fun fact: Listing Slavery in the secession declarations set the legal framework for the South to leave the Union constitutionally. It is a manipulation of intent to interpret these documents as proof that the main cause of the South was to enslave African Americans. The declarations were used to showcase the violations of the Constitution.

[@stevenmqcueen7576]

“None of the ordinances of secession refer SPECIFICALLY to slavery.” That is a lie. From the South Carolina Declaration of Succession: “[T]he State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act…. “[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. . . . “For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” From the Alabama Ordinance of Succession: “Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama … “And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States, ….” From the Texas Ordinance of Succession: “WHEREAS, The Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens, and … “WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression ….” From the Virginia Ordinance of Succession: “The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States ….” Moreover, each of the six Arkansas Resolutions of Succession cite concerns over the preservation of the institution of slavery as the grounds for succession and succession declarations by rump legislatures or conventions in the border states of Kentucky and Missouri prominently cited preservation of their “property” (i.e., slaves) among their reasons for wishing to succeed. If you research the public discussion in the rest of the succeeding states leading up to their succession, you will find that all of them resolve around the institution of slavery. So the argument that the Civil War was not principally a war over slavery is dissembling fiction.

[@Deepocean567]

@stevenmqcueen7576 just because few States mentioned slavery doesn't mean that's how the war started

[@commonsense5125]

So in other words he was a paid propagandist with an assignment from the army.

[@brianniegemann4788]

There is a difference between propaganda and the truth. He was assigned to write an expose' about the true conditions of slaves in Louisiana, and the hypocritical, cruel practices of the planters.

[@oldgeezerproductions]

Our government and our military sponsor and support many studies including scientific research. These studies and this research is not "propaganda."

[@Mr4autiger]

@@brianniegemann4788 did he get around to interviewing the multiple, and rather large, black* slave owners in Louisianna while on his trip?

[@brianniegemann4788]

@@Mr4autiger thanks for your reply. All l know is what was in Mr. Coddington's video. I remember that the officer who wrote the report contrasted the statements of the planters with the evidence carved unto the backs of the slaves. I'm aware that there were certain black slave owners in that time, as well as Cherokee Indians, and slave owners in the border and northern states where it was legal. But l haven't read much about it. I should see if l can find a book on the subject. My overall conclusion from the books on the Civil War I've read is that slavery was a major reason for the antebellum South's general backwardness, lack of industry and education, and high unemployment among poor whites. Compared to the North that is.

[@Mr4autiger]

@@brianniegemann4788 nope.

[@georgefitzhugh5408]

One-hundred fifty years later, who knows who was lying? Hepworth seems to have made up his mind about Southern slavery before he left Boston.

[@owensomers8572]

Yet his observations are consistent with those of many others, to include many southerners who found slavery abhorrent.

[@stevenmqcueen7576]

For all we know, the slaves were happy on their plantations and resented the meddling Northerners who destroyed their idyllic way of life, right. How to people get so stupid?

[@tedr.5978]

Much of history is reading the observations, opinions, mistakes and lies of eye witness, and trying to tease out the truth we can.

[@HH-gd2cb]

Perhaps he was right about southern slavery in particular and slavery in general. Just saying.

[@edwil111]

The slaves liked being slaves! Right? Housing, food... no worries. Right?

[@mkunes2502]

Hey fellow researcher. Try this interpretation of the notion of an “honest man”. Cherry tree stories came later. An honest man was one who could be “honest” before his judge..before God. It was 19th century shorthand for “the man wasn’t a child molester.” General Washington…an honest man. Tom Jefferson was NOT an honest man. Try that interpretation.