Slavery in Fact and Fiction, Southern Slavery as It Really Was, Guest Post by Leonard M. “Mike” Scruggs

[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. - Following Mike's bio and article are links to his website and to The Times Examiner where you can find his excellent columns.

Please support Defend Arlington and our efforts to save the magnificent 109 year old Confederate Reconciliation Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, which is slated for demolition thanks to Elizabeth Warren and her naming commission and its FALSE report to Congress with respect to the Confederate Memorial.

Destroying a world class 109 year old monument to war dead that is surrounded by 518 Confederate graves in concentric circles emanating out from the monument would put a scab on Arlington National Cemetery for all time and dishonor everybody buried there.

We can not allow that.

The Confederate Memorial should not even be in the naming commission's remit. It does not commemorate the Confederacy as required by Warren's legislation for the naming commission to have any say.

It commemorates the reconciliation of North and South and the reuniting of the United States of America after a war in which 750,000 died and over a million were maimed.

Historian James McPherson wrote:

the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and that of all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II."ⁱ

The reconciliation theme symbolized by the Confederate Memorial is irrefutable and stated clearly in numerous places by Arlington National Cemetery itself in its 2014 registration for its Historic District to be on the National Register of Historic Places.

The naming commission in its FALSE report to Congress on the Confederate Monument did not mention the reconciliation theme or any of the monument's important history though it was DEFINITELY known to them.

Elizabeth Warren's Woke naming commission, which has added to our military recruiting crisis by falsifying Southern history, left all of the following out:

The monument was the idea of Union soldier and later president, William McKinley, after enthusiastic Southern participation in the Spanish-American War, and it was approved by Congress.

McKinley said:

. . . every soldier's grave made during our unfortunate civil war is a tribute to American valor . . . And the time has now come . . . when in the spirit of fraternity we should share in the care of the graves of the Confederate soldiers . . . The cordial feeling now happily existing between the North and South prompts this gracious act and if it needed further justification it is found in the gallant loyalty to the Union and the flag so conspicuously shown in this year just passed by the sons and grandsons of those heroic dead.

President William Howard Taft spoke and was warmly received at the UDC ceremony the evening the cornerstone was laid.

President Woodrow Wilson gave the dedication speech June 4, 1914.

President Theodore Roosevelt sent the first memorial wreath that started an annual tradition observed by all presidents including Barack Obama.

President Warren G. Harding sent a message of condolence to be read at the funeral of the monument's acclaimed Jewish sculptor, Moses Ezekiel, who was a VMI Confederate soldier.

Ezekiel created the Confederate Monument in the City of Rome, Italy and is buried next to his monument in Arlington National Cemetery along with two other Confederate soldiers and a Confederate sailor.

Veterans North and South, with love and enthusiasm for our reunited nation, supported the monument and spoke at its ceremonies.

A hundred page book of all the participants, speeches and history was published in 1914 by the UDC and is available on Amazon. The title is: History of the Arlington Confederate Monument, by Hilary A. Herbert, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Arlington Confederate Monument Association. It is available in hardback or softcover.

Remember, those were the days of the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg and the famous handshakes across the wall by the old Union and Confederate veterans.

Naming commission vice chair, Ty Seidule, a leftist who hates the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, admits the reconciliation theme and wrote about it in his book, Robert E. Lee and Me, though he left that out of the naming commission's report to Congress.

I doubt if Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin would have approved demolishing a magnificent 109 year old monument to peace and reconciliation in our nation's most sacred burial ground if he had been given the complete history.

On page 162 of Robert E. Lee and Me, Seidule writes:

Of the thousands of monuments around the country to the Confederacy, the one in Arlington National Cemetery angers me the most. Every year, the commander in chief sends a wreath, ensuring the Confederate monument receives all the prestige of the U.S. government. That's why it riles me so much. . . .ⁱⁱ

Seidule then admits that the Confederate Memorial stands for reconciliation:

I know both political parties and white citizens in the North and South brought the country back together after the tremendous bloodletting and destruction of the Civil War. The posts named for Confederate officers during World War I also served to knit white America back together as it fought a common foe. And it worked, but we must recognize that reconciliation came at a steep and horrifying cost. African Americans paid the price with lynching, Jim Crow segregation, and the loss of the franchise. The price for white reconciliation remains far too high. (Bold emphasis added.)ⁱⁱⁱ

So, the naming commission and its vice chair definitely knew the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery symbolizes peace, patriotism and the reunification of the United States of America but they did not say a word about it, which makes their report, with respect to the Confederate Memorial, a LIE.^iv

Esteemed British art critic and historian, Alexander Adams, writes in his "Testimony regarding Arlington National Cemetery Confederate Memorial submitted to the Advisory Committee on Arlington National Cemetery Open Session," 7-8 November, 2022:

Having viewed a large amount of public statuary from the beaux-arts era (1850-1914), it is my professional opinion that the Memorial is a serious, iconographically complex and technically accomplished piece of art. In my view, it is a handsome sculpture and an entirely appropriate funerary monument. I consider it an internationally significant piece of art of its type and era. Any nation should be proud to host such a magnanimous and dignified monument.

The inscription “And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks” provides a Biblical guidance to turning from war to peace. This is echoed by the personification of the South, which holds the wreath of glory and touches the plough of peaceful prosperity. The frieze below depicts the contributions of those who supported the war effort.

Please scroll down to the "Links to Important Resources" and make a donation. We need money for our crack legal team to continue our litigation.

We CAN win this fight!

Please help us make Woke ignorance and hate DIE at Arlington National Cemetery.]

Mike Scruggs is the author of two books - The Un-Civil War, Shattering the Historical Myths; and Lessons from the Vietnam War, Truths the Media Never Told You - and over 600 articles on military history, national security, intelligent design, genealogical genetics, immigration, current political affairs, Islam, and the Middle East.

The abridged version of The Un-Civil War sold over 40,000 copies and won the prestigious D. T. Smithwick Award by the North Carolina Society of Historians, for excellence.

Mike holds a BS degree from the University of Georgia and an MBA from Stanford University. A former USAF intelligence officer and Air Commando, he is a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War and holds the Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, and Air Medal. He is a retired First Vice President for a major national financial services firm and former Chairman of the Board of a classical Christian school.

Slavery in Fact and Fiction

By Mike Scruggs
(First published in The Times Examiner, 24 July 2023)

A Historical Perspective on American Slavery

THE IMAGE OF AMERICAN SLAVERY in the minds of most people today is one of chains, bullwhips, cruelty, and arrogant human abuse. This was often true of the transportation of slaves associated with the slave trade but was largely untrue of the practice of slavery on American shores. Some inexcusable human abuses did occur under American slavery and should not be condoned, but such abuses were far less common than generally assumed.

Even Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, based principally on accounts of runaway slaves, Southern newspaper records of slave masters prosecuted by Southern state governments, and only very limited firsthand familiarity with the South, gives a more balanced picture of slavery than the common modern image.

The universal evidence of history indicates that the institution of slavery in various forms existed from the most ancient times in every recorded civilization.

Southern Slavery as It Really Was

The two richest sources on the actual conditions of slavery in the South prior to its Constitutional end are Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s formidable academic study entitled, Time on the Cross, published in 1974, and the Roosevelt Administration’s publication record of interviews of about 2,300 former slaves conducted from 1936 through 1938.

These systematically designed interviews were published by state in a multi-volume series usually called The Slave Narratives.  Because these two sources combined give both statistical data and thousands of eyewitness testimonies, they are a historical gold mine.

However, because they both present a historical account of Southern slavery generally contradictory to what is now fashionable or even mandatory in most academic, media, and government circles, they are now largely neglected. Although academic freedom is under attack in the U.S. and other Western countries, The Slave Narratives are presently available on the internet. More than a dozen of the state volumes are available in paperback from Amazon.

Despite the South’s largely agricultural economy, only about 26 percent of Southern families actually owned slaves.

Many people, including even prominent slave owners, saw slavery as extremely dangerous and inconsistent with their concept of liberty. Among these were Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert E. Lee, and John Randolph. Probably, a majority of Southerners would gladly have phased out slavery, but no one, North or South [including Abraham Lincoln before the war as he stated] could see how it could be done without causing extreme economic hardship on the country and harming the U.S. export trade.

According to Fogel and Engerman, the material conditions of Southern black slaves compared favorably to Northern industrial whites. Their caloric intake, for example, was ten percent greater than free whites.

The vitamin content of the slave diet far exceeded that of whites and the recommended daily levels established in 1964. The protein content was 110 percent greater and the iron content 230 percent greater than the minimum daily requirement.

According to testimonies in The Slave Narratives, it is very evident that slaves enjoyed abundant, varied, and much appreciated food. The reason the nutrient value of the slave diet exceeded that of whites so much was that the whites ate white potatoes, while the slaves enjoyed the much more nutritious sweet potatoes.  Most slave families were also allowed their own small gardens, most frequently planted with sweet potatoes.

While most slaves were field hands or household servants, there were significant numbers in other occupations.

Seven percent of slaves, almost all of them males, were essentially part of the plantation management staff. Such positions were foremen (or drivers), overseers, and even general managers. In fact, most field foremen were black slaves.

Another twelve percent were skilled craftsmen such as carpenters and blacksmiths. About seven percent were semi-skilled, which included teamsters and many household servants.

Housing standards for Southern slaves in 1860 compared favorably to free whites. There were 5.3 persons per white household and 5.2 persons per slave household.

Only rarely was there more than one family per slave cabin. Most slave cabins were about 360 square feet of ground space plus sleeping lofts for children and some porch space. This exceeded the average living space of New York City households in 1892 [27 years after the War Between the States].

Medical care for the average Southern slave was considerably better than for the white Northern factory worker. Most larger plantations maintained a substantial hospital. These were usually visited by the same doctor that treated the plantation owners and white employees. The largest plantations had full-time doctors.

The hospitals were usually staffed with one or more full-time slaves acting as nurses and midwives. They were typically elderly slaves who could no longer perform physical labor. Other slave-women specialized in caring for the children on the plantation.

The average slave lifespan was only 36 in 1850, comparable to Northern industrial workers and whites in France, Italy, and the Netherlands, but four years less than the average of all American whites.

The maternal death rate of slaves in childbearing was 167 per thousand births. While this is very high by modern standards, it was slightly less for slaves than whites.

The infant mortality rate for slaves was 183 per thousand, about three percent higher than white Southerners.

The slave suicide rate was only one in ten thousand per year, only one third that of whites.

The standard issue of slave clothing was quite adequate. The clothing was not fashionable, but very sturdy.  Slaves were generally issued two pairs of shoes per year,  made of high quality leather.

Contrary to popular belief, slave owners generally relied on motivational incentives rather than the whip to increase the work efficiency of slaves. Some typical incentives were cash payments, time off, team bonuses, and the opportunity to make money selling produce from their own gardens and small plots of land.

Many plantations worked on a task system. A slave was assigned tasks that could be easily accomplished in a day. They usually finished these tasks ahead of schedule and used the time to rest, visit, or work on their own accounts. Some were allowed to work off the plantation to earn additional money.

Another astonishing statistic derived from Fogel and Engerman’s data is that when the cost of food, housing, clothes, and healthcare, plus various kinds of cash incentive pay are added, the total compensation of the average slave was fifteen percent higher than the pay of comparable free agricultural workers in the South.

Fogel and Engerman also estimate that the owner share of slave production after expenses was only about 14 percent. Today almost all workers pay more than 14 percent of their income in various payroll taxes.

Slave maintenance costs were from cradle to grave. It took slightly more than 21 years from birth to breakeven. Slave labor could not therefore be said to be irresistibly profitable.

Slavery was probably a doomed economic system that could not have lasted another generation. Slavery was not the cause of the War and would have ended without the War, just as it did in all other countries.

Also contrary to popular opinion, the slave family was usually kept together and had strong patriarchal rather than matriarchal features. They had de facto ownership of homes and gardens and were allowed to keep incentive and other entrepreneurial earnings for themselves.

The unit of plantation distribution was the family. Marriage ceremonies were often performed, although many were de facto.

One moral defect of the slave system was that slave families could be broken up. On average, only one slave in 22 was sold in a year, but the cumulative effect could be destabilizing. At least a third of these were estate sale disbursements.  Most family separations occurred because of westward migration.

Roughly 80 percent of the Slave Narrative interviews indicate former slaves had a favorable opinion of their masters, many of them remarkable in their affection and praise.

About 5 percent demonstrate an unfavorable memory, some of them shameful.

Perhaps the most remarkable impression given by The Slave Narratives is the prevalence of Christian faith and affectionate bonds between master and slave in the South.

Those who have been led to see the relationship of master and slave in the South as one of cruel tyranny by masters and suppressed resentment on the part of slaves may be stunned to read so many interviews that demonstrate common respect and affection instead.

These positive and affectionate recollections are so numerous that they make a strong and immediate impression.  You may read some of these in my book, The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths, 2011.

ⁱ James McPherson, quoted in Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), xii.

ⁱⁱ Ty Seidule, Robert E. Lee and Me, A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2020), 162.

ⁱⁱⁱ Ibid.

^iv Law Insider defines LYING as "the misrepresentation of one or more facts in order to gain a benefit or harm another person, where the actor knows or should know that the misrepresentation will be relied upon by another person." https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/lying, accessed 8-1-23. If a person lies about one thing they will lie about many things.