'Where was the Lord?': Slave testimonies

https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/in-depth/news/2019/06/03/alabama-state-holiday-jefferson-davis-birthday-where-lord-9-slave-testimonies/3740398002/

by diodorus • 7 years ago

108 108 7 years ago

montgomeryadvertiser.com

epynonymous4• 7 years ago

that's just an awful part of world history, what allowed that to flourish? total evil in men's hearts, this was only 200 years ago, not that long ago, this isnt something that happened 1000 years ago.

and even though the confederacy was based on slaves being unequal to whites, the civil war was not necessarily about slavery only, it was more of a split in government between a pro-agrarian society, which required large swaths of slaves, and states vs federal government. sure there were people strongly against slavery in the north like abraham lincoln and abolishinists, but i imagine a large majority in the north didnt really see that as the largest issue, it was more the south wanting to leave the united states and.form their own government.

invalidOrTaken• 7 years ago

what allowed that to flourish? total evil in men's hearts

To believe this is to be deceived. It leads to the idea that "I'm not 'totally evil,' thus I'm not at risk for doing something like this." But there were kind-hearted Nazis and black-hearted Allies, Stalin was reported to be a doting father, and some slaves struggled terribly after emancipation.

If we don't see things clearly, we put ourselves at risk of repeating the mistakes of those we disparage, though perhaps in a different form.

maxxxxx• 7 years ago

Agreed. Seeing people as completely "evil" or "not evil" is a big mistake. For example a lot of people think that if someone has nice family and goes to church he is a "good man". But plenty of these people have committed mass murder while being nice at home.

thephyber5• 7 years ago

It's also worth mentioning that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850[1] made it a crime for police and private citizens in slavery-illegal states ("the North") not to arrest and return slaves to the estate that they escaped from. In effect, the "good people" in the entire country were still culpable of the continuing existence of that "Peculiar Institution".

I wonder what an average Northern jury person would think of prosecuting another Northerner who was charged with harboring a runaway slave in a Northern state (where slavery was illegal at the time). If the law says that the jury can only consider the facts of the case, not whether the law is just or moral/ethical, what are we to make of our legal system?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

taneq2• 7 years ago

total evil in men's hearts

Who put it there, hmm?

thephyber5• 7 years ago

Seems like a reasonable question to ask.

I suspect the downvotes are because this appears to be either a useless question (because it violates dogma of the most common Christian sect in the US) or because it's seen as a "cheap shot" at those beliefs, but it still seems like an important question we need to continually struggle with. It's not like we have proven the null hypothesis.

deckiedan2• 7 years ago

I suspect you're just trolling - but in case you're interested in /a/ perspective from within the broader Christian tradition...

What is evil? What would "evil in men's hearts" mean?

Evil as a concept can only exist if there is some kind of definition of Good, or Anti-Evil as well.

If Good and Evil are both just arbitary made-up definitions by some supreme being with a control-complex, then screw everything, it's all a meaningless shitshow.

Equally, if there is no Good or Evil, just physical/chemical/quantum reactions in a purely mechanical universe, then equally, screw everything. Do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing.

However, if there is some kind of absolute Good, and absolute Evil, and it's just figuring out what those are and mean that's the complex bit - now we have an interesting universe, and the potential for some kind of meaningful life.

We all argue about whether or not there is a God - or if there is, what He/She/It/They think is Good and Evil, both in our behaviour and in theirs.

But the concept of there being actions which are Good, or Right, and actions which are Evil or Wrong somehow seems baked into our outlook. We disagree about specifics, sure.

It could be that for there to be the potential for Good there is also the potential for Evil. Maybe it's impossible to have Good in our hearts if there is not also Evil.

So what would a supreme being want from us? To aim for good, and avoid evil, sure. We want that from each other too. And from ourselves.

But there are other things too. The bible trys to say God's desired interaction with us is closest understood by the analogy of a Father/Child relationship.

So as a Dad, sure, I want a bit of obedience, especially when they're young and learning... But I'd rather my kids choose Good themselves, and listen to me for advice, and decide for themselves whether or not what I say is Good. And if they disagree, but it's not going to hurt them (too much) or others, then I prefer them do something I think is wrong than them to blindly obey me. I can give them advice, direction, but the older they grow, the more what I really want from them is more and more towards a real friendship.

And I believe the same is true with our interaction with God. I believe God is more interested in a relationship with us, even if we're arguing and debating with Him/Her/It/Them, than in us blinding obeying. I believe there is the potential for a much more fulfilling life by pursuing meaning (and God) than by deliberately turning our backs on the idea.

Jesus said "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you". Seems like a good advice to me.

(If you want some links, Luke's gospel is an interesting place to start. Or "The Case for Christ" (The book by Lee Strobel - ignore the preachy movie) might be interesting.)

wwarner2• 7 years ago

Um, your theory of the civil war would've been news to Ulysses Grant who sent troops to many southern states to protect the voting rights of former slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Later_Reconst...

Until the Civil War, slavery was like a scar that refused to heal. What's strange is that the southern aristocracy led their fellow countrymen into a hopeless war to defend a completely corrupt and diseased economic model.

maxerickson5• 7 years ago

Lincoln was elected in large part because he was opposed to allowing slavery in new states (a popular position in the North) and secession followed directly from his election, because the Confederate States saw limiting slavery in the territories as an existential threat to their own practice of slavery.

It's also kind of funny to hand wave about how the war was about a "pro-agrarian society" instead of necessarily about slavery and then immediately toss in a mention that the pro-agrarian society "required" slavery.

shawndumas4• 7 years ago

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” — Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley; August 22, 1862.

msla• 7 years ago

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornersto...

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

That's what the Vice President of the CSA said.

The states also issued declarations of causes. Let's look at a couple of them:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...

Georgia
A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.
Mississippi
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

The CSA attempted to leave over the issue of slavery. Trying to say it was otherwise is to buy into the discredited Lost Cause narrative.

https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D217

https://daily.jstor.org/origins-confederate-lost-cause/

rdtsc• 7 years ago

total evil in men's hearts, this was only 200 years ago, not that long ago, this isnt something that happened 1000 years ago.

Slavery is alive and well. Don't have to look 200 years into the past. This was just in 2017 in Libya.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42038451

"The footage released by CNN appears to show youths from Niger and other sub-Saharan countries being sold to buyers for about $400 (£300) at undisclosed locations in Libya..."

It's not at the same scale as before but the practice certainly hasn't ended. It's also important to ask what allowed it to flourish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya
"...More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega.[87] The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri in the continental United States..."

And here is ex Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cheerfully exclaiming "We came, we saw, he died" all laughing and giggling like it's a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

roboys3• 7 years ago

Well, there was no slavery in Libya until Team America decided to drop in.

zdw4• 7 years ago

Freeing slaves had the effect of taking away "property" from people.

Any change to the status quo that affects someones finances, you'll see some level of opposition.

gumby6• 7 years ago

The federal government paid “reparations” to those former slave owners and they were wealthier by the 1880s than they had been before the war.

pharrington• 7 years ago

Hopefully to crystallize what everyone else said,

The American Civil War was not only about slavery; however, slavery was the primary motivational reason for the War.

bscphil3• 7 years ago

A think a longer (but more clarifying) statement would be "slavery was the primary motivational reason for the War for the Confederates." Saying "the reason for the war" is already misleading because it assumes there was a reason than applied to both sides. On the contrary, the Union didn't conquer the South out of the goodness of their hearts because they were (mostly) fervent abolitionists. I think that's the misleading thing your summary implies.

jandrese2• 7 years ago

when I was in grade school I learned that the Civil War was all about slavery. In college my roommates educated me about the numerous reasons for the civil war. After researching it more I've discovered that the Civil War was all about slavery.

gumby6• 7 years ago

Thank you!

danesparza2• 7 years ago

Reconstruction is where the US south shows their true colors in history. If there is any doubt in your mind about what the US Civil War was about, what happened in the years immediately following the Appomattox court house surrender should clear things up.

Please lookup Jim Crow laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws ,

"Lost Cause" history rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

microwavecamera• 7 years ago

https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seced...

aravindet• 7 years ago

This should be required reading in American schools.

hi41• 7 years ago

never seed her no more in this life

I am moved by the stories. The accounts are so raw and visceral. Is there a website where there are audio recordings of the narrations?

SomeOldThrow• 7 years ago

Maybe not these narrations, but there is this: https://www.loc.gov/collections/voices-remembering-slavery/a...

zdw4• 7 years ago

Slavery is undoubtably beneficial to Capitalism (ex: sea trade via the triangular trade routes), and the almighty dollar frequently overrides morality for the worse.

bachmeier• 7 years ago

I will respond to this only because I've heard it before. That view is impossible to justify because

a. Slavery is an evil, repulsive act, and if it's linked to capitalism, then that will (for good reason) lead to opposition to capitalism.

b. While it was economically good for some, it was bad for others, and you can't write down a sensible economic model in which ownership of others leads to an efficient outcome.

That's all I'm going to say about this crazy claim in an attempt to prevent its misuse.

thephyber5• 7 years ago

This seems like the same "solution aversion"[1] argument that lots of conservatives have when it comes to rejecting the possibility of "global warming" / "climate change".

I would argue it's also wrong, especially in the modern USA flavor of capitalism after the Friedman Doctrine[2] said that shareholders are actually immoral for not maximizing profits despite any other social responsibility. This is a "Paperclip Maximizer"[3] utility function where companies eventually figure out how to use legal, financial, and psychological/addictive tools to overwhelm the defenses of all consumers in a society. It's effectively a flavor of social darwinism.

Interestingly, capitalism might be kept in check given a strong enough government (eg. regulations designed and updated smartly to keep corporations from abusing the weakest consumers), but ours has largely been captured[4] by corporate interests.

[1] https://bppblog.com/2018/03/27/solution-aversion/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_convergence#Paper...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

tasty_freeze3• 7 years ago

I'm not saying the person you are responding to is right, but your counter seems flawed. Owning slaves was legal and allowed some people to gather wealth, even at the expense of other people. As a result, there were people who got rich doing exactly that.

Why isn't that part of capitalism? Yes, it taints it, but really what it says to me is that unfettered capitalism will lead to "evil", repulsive acts, and that is exactly why, as problematic as it is, government must set legal boundaries around unacceptable behavior when such behaviors are discovered.

To make a modern analogy, it is legal for coal companies to "top" mountains, and to strip mine, and to release gigatons of CO2, and with it biologically significant amounts of mercury, massive amounts of particulates, large waste byproducts of coal ash and more. It is legal and profitable, so there are many companies doing it, despite the clear external costs to environment and the health of the population. Is this not part of capitalism?

zdw4• 7 years ago

I think I stated this poorly - optimization in most economic systems ends up causing problems of morality. Any number of non-capitalist systems have their own host of problems that are comparable in magnatude.

Most of the other responses in this thread point out rightly that your predicate in item b) is the core problem of capitalism - profit is frequently optimized by creating negative externalities.

Cthulhu_• 7 years ago

As another commenter pointed out, slavery was a modern version of feudalism, not so much capitalism. I am not an economist or historian, but I'd say the difference is that in a capitalistic society, the employees are also consumers, part of - if not the drivers and backbone of - the economic system.

That is, simplistically speaking, employer pays employee, employee has steady income, employee goes to bank to deposit savings and take out a mortgage to buy a house, vastly improving quality of life. Bank uses savings to give out loans and mortgages allowing for people to start businesses and family lives, gains interest back, pays it back to savings accounts, etc.

Well, that was how it worked for a while anyway, nowadays I have no clue, outstanding mortgages are speculated with at high risk, banks spend your savings and the debt of your mortgage ten times over at least in financial constructions of exponential complexity, etc.

TallGuyShort• 7 years ago

It's not really free market capitalism unless the slaves voluntarily sold themselves. They didn't. Thus it's just stealing. Stealing can also make you rich.

thephyber5• 7 years ago

Interestingly, thought leaders at the time of European ownage of African slaves thought the differences of "races" were similar to the differences between species. I'd wager some people still do.

Laissez-faire[1] capitalism fundamentals require "freedom of the individual", but the definition of "individual" is usually not specific enough to afford it to all human beings or to prevent it from being ascribed to non-human entities. I wonder if we will ever get to a place where we recognize the intelligence of other species / non-human entities (non-terrestrials, AI, incredibly intelligent dogs/dolphins/elephants etc.) deserves these same protections in the economy.

Also worth noting that "negative externalities"[2] can also cause massive harm[3], but laissez-faire capitalism doesn't always afford for any protections against them (depending on how obvious/proximal they are to a human action/intention).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

ionised• 7 years ago

He said capitalism, not free-market capitalism.

They are not the same thing.

wwarner2• 7 years ago

How does this explain the end of American slavery, which was also brought about by capitalism?

cooper123• 7 years ago

Capitalism never ended slavery, it has actually prolonged it. The constitution expressly includes an exception for slavery: if one has been convicted of a crime. This has led to the prison-industrial complex. [0] Guess what demographic is disproportionately represented in these prisons? [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_comp...

[1]: "African Americans are incarcerated at more than 5 times the rate of whites." (https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/)

jahewson• 7 years ago

The plantation owners in the South were more akin to medieval landowners than capitalists. An economy based on land ownership and inefficient agriculture doesn’t have much in common with capitalism - where the interchange of money and its investment and use are the drivers of wealth creation. The industrialised and capitalistic North, which rejected slavery, prospered far more than, and ultimately defeated, the South.

gumby6• 7 years ago

The industrialised and capitalistic North, which rejected slavery

How do you think Boston became so wealthy? Slave mortgages and financing slave trips to Africa. Whaling didn’t take off until the latter declined, but the slave mortgages continued through the war.

sgt101• 7 years ago

The Californian gold rush was a big factor; it created a huge stimulus and liquidity injection, recapitalising US industry, infrastructure and fedral government. Ironically this empowered the north to contend with the south, freeing (in name and partially) the slaves of the south but condeming the peoples of the west to genocide.

zaro• 7 years ago

I don't think you deserve the down votes. Even to this day modern capitalist societies rely heavily on neocolonialism, to sustain their existence.

defterGoose• 7 years ago

Any time I hear another impassioned plea about some southerner's pride in displaying the Confederate flag as a mark of their "cultural heritage", I roll my eyes. Sure, I'll recognize your freedom of speech as to the display, but you'll never convince me that the display is anything but bald racism. The closest thing I've ever heard to a rationale from a defender is basically "because reasons". Even "states' rights" requires a clear motivation when you're talking about one small part of a federation, and still boils down to racism if you take it to its logical conclusion. As a rebuttal, you need only look at quotes from prominent Confederates to know the truth; that you're going out of your way to defend the acts of some very evil men. Reading these stories made my stomach churn. I'm done with [your] moral equivalencies.

pluma2• 7 years ago

The questionability of national pride aside, if Confederate flag brandishing Southerners truly only cared about national pride they'd do what Germans do: not fly the damn flag.

It's okay to have a problematic history. You don't have to be proud of everything your ancestors or their peers did. The Confederacy was a lose coalition of states that were defending their right to own slaves. If you were born in the South that doesn't mean you have to make up excuses for this or be sorry about it -- those things happened before you were born. But if you celebrate it, you celebrate slavery.

There are a lot of nuances you could argue about (e.g. how much slave owners should have been subsidised to cushion the economic impact of abolishment or whether the US should have allowed states to secede peacefully) but abolishment was the right thing to do and the states that took up arms to stop it were on the wrong side of history.

You don't see Germans find it socially acceptable to celebrate the accomplishments of 1930s Germany much. It shouldn't be socially acceptable to celebrate the Confederacy either. Especially if they have ancestors who fought for Germany in WW2.

Oh and the most absurd part of that excuse is that the flag in question was only in use for a very short time and specifically in the context of the war. This is like saying the flag of the Nazi Germany Kriegsmarine isn't about anything the Nazis did.

ARandomerDude• 7 years ago

Q. Where was the Lord?

A. Where is the Confederacy now?

danesparza2• 7 years ago

Alive and well, but using other names.

The KKK was formed after the Civil War (and the Confederacy). Jim Crow Laws were long after the Confederacy supposedly died. The Civil Rights movement (specifically in Selma Alabama) was long after the Confederacy.

gumby6• 7 years ago

Parchman and Angola.

Jim Crow laws were used as the model for the Nuremberg Laws and Mein Kampf calls out the achievements of white supremacy in the USA.

tasty_freeze3• 7 years ago

Can you explain why you think what you said was exculpatory for God's inaction?

Even if you somehow just accept that because slavery ended in the US after generations of horrifying cruelty, how do you reconcile your response with the fact that human slavery is still practiced to this very day in many places?

the_pwner224• 7 years ago

Its still legal in the US for prisoners. Esp. in privately owned and operated prisons (which get govt. contracts requiring a minimum number of cells to remain filled), the slaves are forced to work for American companies and get pennies per hour.

wmeredith• 7 years ago

Oh please. This is beyond naive. There are ~10x more slaves in the world today (30,000,000 [2]) than there were at the height of the Confederacy (3,500,000 [1]).

If this is truly your answer to “Where was God?” I ask you, “Where is God?”

Sources: [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_Americ... [2]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/10/17...

dang• 7 years ago

Oh please. This is beyond naive

Would you please edit out snarky bits and name calling from your comments here? They degrade discussion and invite worse.

This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

rolltiide• 7 years ago

States rights [to own slaves]

willvarfar• 7 years ago

Unfortunately, the website just redirects me to https://eu.montgomeryadvertiser.com/ which has got to be the least impressive internationalisation website I've ever seen?

Anyone post a text-dump?

neonate• 7 years ago

Does https://web.archive.org/web/20190617060036/https://www.montg... work?

mellosouls• 7 years ago

Yes (I'm not the requester but had the same issue), thank you.

NotSammyHagar• 7 years ago

That was an incredibly powerful set of personal testimony. I just don't get exposed to that visceral reminder of what slavery was very much. And still so much of the south is in denial about it. Setting up gerrymandered districts in Virgina, making it harder for people to vote in ways that clearly make it harder for blacks to vote. So much of that is still here. I'm from a southern state, it's not exactly unknown to me that this has been the way it was for a lot of people. Now that I live in my west coast tech utopia I don't see people who seem to live in that world (sarcastically I kind of say this, look at all the homeless but there is less visible racism, so it must be more hidden). This should be required reading in schools. My own history classes told me a lot about how horrible slavery was, but wow, nothing like this.

I'm amazed they published that in the newspaper. Look through the editorials in it, search for jefferson davis and read what people say about changing school names. That was a freaking brave editorial decision. - https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/education/20...

pegasus• 7 years ago

It's already gone. WBM archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.montgomeryadvertis...

Vinnl3• 7 years ago

I'm amazed they published that in the newspaper. (...) That was a freaking brave editorial decision.

As someone not from the US: what would the controversy here be? (i.e. what reason would someone opposed to publishing this name?)

The Netherlands has done pretty awful things in Indonesia after WW2, and while that is unfortunately hardly mentioned in high school, I can't imagine it being controversial for a Dutch newspaper to publish testimonials of it.

simonh2• 7 years ago

Imagine that a large number of people in the Netherlands thought that what the Netherlands did in Indonesia were right and justified, and that the Netherlands should still have colonies and Indonesians should be ruled from the Netherlands to this day. Imagine these people still fly flags celebrating Netherlands rule of Indonesia and name their schools after the officers responsible for committing those atrocities in Indonesia, which they deny actually happened.

Protostome2• 7 years ago

To us, 2 centuries after slavery went extinct in the civilized world, the idea seems incredibly cruel, although it was practiced in various forms throughout human history in most civilizations with little regard to its victims.

We must ask ourselves, are there any other malevolent deeds inflicted humans to other humans or living creatures that we overlook? The most obvious answer to this is the treatment of animals in the meat and dairy industries. Those creatures can't and will never be able to voice their suffering. It seems to me that in 2 centuries from now, people will talk about this issue with the same contempt we talk about slavery today.

akiselev• 7 years ago

To us, 2 centuries after slavery went extinct in the civilized world, the idea seems incredibly cruel, although it was practiced in various forms throughout human history in most civilizations with little regard to its victims.

There are more chattel slaves alive today than there were during the 18 or 19th century, by a wide margin so, no, it is not extinct. Unless, of course, you don't consider much of the human world civilized, which is perhaps a more loaded can of worms than animal rights.

TausAmmer• 7 years ago

I exploit poor and weak for monetary gain and I think it is completely normal.

jmcqk6• 7 years ago

2 centuries? You might want to check your math on that. And also language. Illegal is not the same as extinct. So if you're looking for things that have been overlooked, you might start right here.

Protostome2• 7 years ago

I'm not sure I understand your comment. Slavery is illegal, that means that we as a society reject and punish those who practice it.

The question of whether it will ever disappear is a question of enforcement/policy and not of moral values.

lsiebert• 7 years ago

Let me get this straight, the majority of the discussion on this painful look into a horrible institution is about the financial system, and whether it technically constitutes Capitalism?

These were real people, with names and faces just like you and I, not some abstract argument about personal liberty or economic systems.

It seems really disrespectful to me to reduce people to that. Like people here are making them a kind of chattel again, fodder for arguments, instead of seeing their humanity.

Anyway, for those that care, for white people who can see that the legacy of this horror is still with us, built into our institutions: here is a real quick read on dismantling racism in an organization.

http://uuwhiteness.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/READ_Anti-R...

'Where was the Lord?': Slave testimonies

Related Stories