The Black History
-----------------
Wolran Kim (Oct 2010)
George Fitzhugh (November 4, 1806 - July 30, 1881) was an American social theorist who published racial and slavery-based sociological theories in the antebellum era. He argued that "the negro is but a grown up child" who needs the economic and social protections of slavery. They are not lunatic or criminal but they are not people of noble character as whites. So without master's protective custody, they can't live normally and that is their inborn fate and humble origin. The Negro is irresponsible so society should prevent their evil influence and watch over their deficiency. The Negro race is inferior to the white race and gradual extermination would be their fate. There is no way to help them except domestic slavery and black women and children are working to meet their conditions. He contended slavery ensured that blacks would be economically secure and morally civilized, and that free society is more oppressive to the laborer than domestic slavery. There is no evidence or statistical data and he just tells us personal notions from prejudice. He sticks to his guns for his way of life and fixed idea without any expert knowledge as judgment of a huge ethnic group. There is no compromise for recognizing anew about racism. He generalized scraps of information about his thought as he said "Negro race is inferior to the white race" "Negro is irresponsible" "Negro slaves of the South are the happiest" "They enjoy liberty".
According to Senator James Hammond (South Carolina) speech in 1858, the Blacks are of low birth and they were born as slaves. That race has no ability intellectually, socially, and economically for normal life. Slavery is for them and not Whites, and it is the only way to save their lives. There are menial duties in all social systems and the Blacks need their position in society as much as society needs a low race. Abolishing slavery is the same as destruction of all society's law and power. Therefore, slavery is one of the inevitabilities of social form. There are no beggars in the South because all slaves who have no self reliance, have places to live. They don't need to take pains looking for job or starving. It will be like this in the whole South in the future too. Slavery is the Black's lifetime job for their livelihood. There are beggars everywhere in the North and northern capitalism let them be degraded to panhandlers. Society in North takes their labor all day but then throws them out with a poor pay. The people who don't have self support have no choice but to beg. Southern slavery lives together by taking Blacks and bringing them up but northern capitalism remains an unconcerned spectator. How can we stand by and look on them dying of hunger? The South is keeping their balance by being receptive to Blacks’ humble station in society but the North is a dangerous condition such as poverty in the lower class.
The Black is inferior to the White socially, financially, intellectually, and personally, so it is mercy to them that society guaranteed their living. If there is no slavery, they must beg from door to door. It can't be helped society failed in the northern capitalism but the southern slavery established a better social system and reasonable organization. In the North and South, they both have laboring classes. The North calls them workers under the capitalist system and the South calls them slaves under slavery. The workers of the North have no restrictions economically, socially, or politically by law, whereas the slaves of the South have subordinate positions in society. How would you feel if the South started driving and teaching the North’s workers to overthrow their government and society for a better life, just as the North did to the South?
According to two newspaper articles about Nat Turner's Rebellion —Excerpt from a Richmond (Virginia) Constitutional Whig of August 29, 1831 and The Staunton Spectator, p. 2, November 29, 1859—They reduced and concealed details about rebellion. They want people to feel relieved and didn't want this to cause social and economic unrest. They said that a large majority of Black slaves are happy with the way it is, so it's nothing to worry about. It will be quelled quickly and thinking about future troubles is worthless. They didn't discharge the media's duties by overlooking the motives of the matter. The newspapers feel these disclaimers are necessary because the South might fall of its own weight of slavery which maintains their social system if this is brought to the fore. They didn't want to agitate people with this and take any skeptical view about their slavery system. Also, they wanted to display Southern well shaped power to the North without any weakness. They hope southerners will have no doubt and distrust on slavery which forms the basis of their economic system. Also they don't want southerners to feel some anxiety about all those situations. On northerners, these articles hope they give up emancipation of slaves, and the articles don't want northerners to have new hope from Nat Turner's Rebellion. They don't want to be under the bad influence of this uprising.
I don't believe them because undue pressure inevitably exploded and hiding truth is laid bare sooner or later. Nat Turner's revolt was just the beginning and several riots were suppressed relentlessly after this. For that reason, American slavery went against the times and ran counter to democracy. This is a long way from racial consciousness of Latin-America who realized emancipation of slaves around 1820 (except Brazil). The West Indies, who had well-developed slavery, dissolved slavery after the emancipation in England in 1833. Turner’s rebellion demonstrated to the North the level of anger held by these enslaved, as well as the lengths freedom seekers were prepared to fight for liberty. To the Southerners, they saw their own vulnerability in the most shocking way. Southerners, then, asserted more control over the enslaved by further restricting Black slaves gatherings, travel and education.
The revolt had a profound impact on Southern attitudes towards the "peculiar institution" of slavery. For many southerners it exploded the myth that the slave population was either content or at least congenitally unable to rebel against their inferior status. For other southerners the revolt confirmed in their mind the discontent of slaves and the ever-present menace of rebellion that could topple the southern socio-economic system. For this background, there was publication and organized association against slavery in the North even though Turner's band was hunted down and destroyed after several days. The Southerners started to have a sense of crisis from the powerful Republican Party in 1854.
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3a05113)
shows us optimistically about the slave’s life, telling how they enjoy their happy life freely after a certain amount of labor in southern plantations. Also it tells us the employees of British factory have lives worse than slaves. This viewpoint might looks rational and logical for supporters of slavery because southern slaves looks a lot happier than laborers in the capitalistic system. This is typical vindication of slavery which developed for 40 years before the Civil War. The controversy over slavery had strengthened in the South after severe criticism from Northern and Western abolishers since 1820. Their grounds for slavery were the regional characteristics (the social system is composed of aristocratic class and slavery), biological inferiority of Blacks, and much better happiness of the slaves than Northern laborers.
Defense of slavery according the Bible scriptures is voluntary interpretation and misunderstanding. It is also inconsistent with modern conception which says men are all equal. Of course the Bible admitted slavery in both of the Old Testament and New Testament. Ephesians (6:5~8) says the slaves should serve their masters as God, but the Israelite slavery in Egypt was political oppression. That was same as Israelites taken prisoner by Babylonia. But all of these scriptures need theological interpretation connected with Christian Redemption. On the contrary, the slavery as a social system is totally different for that matter of binding others lives for sweated labor. I think Biblical slavery is not legal approval of trade in human life or sweatshop labor. Inequality of human society is unavoidable. The past communists tried to build equal society focused on the proletariat, but that was an unattainable attempt because it leads to irregularities and despotism. Regardless of which system, democracy, communism, socialism, or slavery, these are only systems belonging to specified history and meeting the demands of the times. Of course there should be different interpretation according to human rights, social structure, purpose of organization, and standard of value.
The Bible is a book which became infinite in variety with interpretation just like strife between atheists and theists. The acute matter of dividing progressivism and conservatism of Christianity is the Bible interpretation, not Evangelism, Ecumenism, Exclusivism, or Religious Darwinism on a large scale. The sharpness is existence or nonexistence of Biblical criticism. Discrimination of sex is the same context. A female didn't count for the number of persons in Old Testament era. Can we bring this fact to the present day? No way. The matter of patriarchism and discrimination of sex in the Bible can't jump over the periodical limit. The Bible comes with fallacies all the time, just like confrontation between the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. Flawlessness of the Bible is a deadly poison which undermines Christianity. I think that we should not induce literally the Bible scriptures to us rising above time and culture. This article is for the South, who wants to keep slavery, seeking the legitimacy from the Bible scripture. The United States was a Christian nation from the beginning. The origin of slavery is under the command of God and the promise of a legally legitimate social system. This proved enslavement is not immoral behavior religiously by Scriptures. This is trying to argue the unfairness of the North who is dreaming of a confederate unification by using the abolition of slavery as a tool.
Let’s see the excerpt from John C. Calhoun’s Senate speech on the importance of domestic slavery, January 1838. In his opinion, slavery is the traditional family system as continue to exist at home. It is the inherited legacy from ancestors and fundamental integral custom. There is no reason to judge and restraint slavery as unfair and immoral conduct. The controversy with abolition is violence and destruction against social usage following agreement and constitutional law. There is no difference from a plunderer. According to Edmund Ruffin, slavery has existed since ancient times and it has been a survivable system under the social, cultural, and political backgrounds in human history. Thriving in any society, it was indispensable for the maintenance regardless of social organization and system. Also, it is a product of civilization which is beneficial to slaves as well as dominators and those profits gained in a society with slavery, is impossible to acquire under the capitalist system. The value of slave labor claims have dropped but it is generally stable with constant balance. In general opinion, slavery expressed easily abuse, violation of human rights, and labor exploitation, but significant evidence of sustained civilization and social progress is found from the time of slavery.
In the process of the conquest and settlement in the New World, the demand for slave labor was indispensable in plantation agriculture. Aboriginal populations were rapidly diminished for defiance, and slavery was established widely because Black labor power was easy to subordinate. Since African blacks in Virginia from 1619, the imported contract workers were not permanent and secured so the west coast of African zone was transformed into a slave-hunting area. They were a major force of tobacco, indigo, and rice producing areas. Since the mid-18th century, the tobacco industry fell into recession and slaves were emancipated in the North following the Enlightenment and the humanitarian way of thinking after independence from the British. But slavery was continued in the Southern despite strong opposition. Moreover, the cotton kingdom was built based on slavery in the southern continent after cotton the spinning machine was invented in 1763. Imported slaves were banned in 1808, but slavery itself evolved to incorporate the reality of African slave labor exploitation and became more miserable along with racial prejudice. Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831 as the beginning of the slave revolt occurred but all of them were ruthlessly suppressed and association of opposition to slavery was founded in the North. Southern had been threatened because emancipation of slaves became influential politically along with founding of the Republican movement in 1854 which mobilized opposition to slavery.
The protective trade policy has become a point of controversy according to calculation of loss and gain for both South and North. The North required protective tariffs for commerce and industry, and the Southern agricultural production was in favor of free trade. Also politically, the North needed the strong central government for the stability and prosperity; on the contrary, in the Southern province each state had its own system. For that reason, slavery was intertwined with both subjective theory of attention and problems over time. Jefferson opposed slavery in 1775 according equality of all men, and Charles Sumner claimed and passionately argued for abolitionism by his opinion of the unique nature of humans: created in the image of God, degraded into the property list in the North. The radical theory led to a full-fledged opposition movement formed. The Anti-slavery Association emerged after Missouri's trembling in 1819-1821. Fierce denunciation of slavery had been concentrated on human rights blaming slavery for barbarous acts. In contrast, the South had established a defense against abolitionists' and attacked the poverty of the Northern working class. The Southerners judged the gruesome scene of the Northern workers as worse moral sin and their commercially unproductive wealth from the North was called moral evil when compared to Southern sacred society and its agricultural systems. All Southern ideology was based on slavery sticking to the whole society, and they seceded from the federal government for their safety and independent government.
Thus the Civil War finally broke out in 1861, and President Lincoln proclaimed the liberation of slaves in 1863. The Civil War killed 38,000 African American and it was an opportunity for the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment. Then in 1888 the liberation of slaves in Brazil ended slavery in modern society. Since the beginning of the slave trade, at least 12 million Black slaves were sold to the New World, and some opinions said it is around 30 million. Modern slavery is an indelible stain in the history of mankind. As a result, impersonal social forces caused the Civil War, and brought the United States to unity. The causes of the Civil War were social and economic situations, such as poverty and wealth. Two economic groups based on commerce and plantation slavery fought on the ground of political governing. Now slavery still remained all around as racial consciousness from long history racism, even though it never being received recognition from any other country in the present age.
If they really believed that people of African descent were by nature inferior to whites, and
congenitally incapable of rising to the intellectual, economic, social, and political level of white people, how do we explain that they put so much energy in passing laws and creating an environment that prohibited blacks from even trying? I think, even from the beginning, it was not their concern that Blacks were the inferior class. They just needed their slaves. There was no appropriate race for being slaves but Black. Slaves were their property of their personal possessions as long as somebody didn’t provoke a quarrel. The fundamental reason for slavery advocate was sustenance. Who would replace their benefit if there were no slaves? There was no answer. Inferiority of the Black slaves was only their long bias and prejudice for subordinate Blacks as slaves. Their opinion that Southern slaves are happier and more stable lives than Northern capitalist workers were justification for maintaining slavery. They had been living in society which neglected slaves' life and social care. They knew that Blacks are not animals or between humans and animals, but they are same race as Whites if they were educated and lived normal lives as a man of noble character. Even though they treated Black slaves as close to the animals, they knew a Black is a human being who has intelligence, heart, and righteousness.
-----------------
Wolran Kim (Oct 2010)
George Fitzhugh (November 4, 1806 - July 30, 1881) was an American social theorist who published racial and slavery-based sociological theories in the antebellum era. He argued that "the negro is but a grown up child" who needs the economic and social protections of slavery. They are not lunatic or criminal but they are not people of noble character as whites. So without master's protective custody, they can't live normally and that is their inborn fate and humble origin. The Negro is irresponsible so society should prevent their evil influence and watch over their deficiency. The Negro race is inferior to the white race and gradual extermination would be their fate. There is no way to help them except domestic slavery and black women and children are working to meet their conditions. He contended slavery ensured that blacks would be economically secure and morally civilized, and that free society is more oppressive to the laborer than domestic slavery. There is no evidence or statistical data and he just tells us personal notions from prejudice. He sticks to his guns for his way of life and fixed idea without any expert knowledge as judgment of a huge ethnic group. There is no compromise for recognizing anew about racism. He generalized scraps of information about his thought as he said "Negro race is inferior to the white race" "Negro is irresponsible" "Negro slaves of the South are the happiest" "They enjoy liberty".
According to Senator James Hammond (South Carolina) speech in 1858, the Blacks are of low birth and they were born as slaves. That race has no ability intellectually, socially, and economically for normal life. Slavery is for them and not Whites, and it is the only way to save their lives. There are menial duties in all social systems and the Blacks need their position in society as much as society needs a low race. Abolishing slavery is the same as destruction of all society's law and power. Therefore, slavery is one of the inevitabilities of social form. There are no beggars in the South because all slaves who have no self reliance, have places to live. They don't need to take pains looking for job or starving. It will be like this in the whole South in the future too. Slavery is the Black's lifetime job for their livelihood. There are beggars everywhere in the North and northern capitalism let them be degraded to panhandlers. Society in North takes their labor all day but then throws them out with a poor pay. The people who don't have self support have no choice but to beg. Southern slavery lives together by taking Blacks and bringing them up but northern capitalism remains an unconcerned spectator. How can we stand by and look on them dying of hunger? The South is keeping their balance by being receptive to Blacks’ humble station in society but the North is a dangerous condition such as poverty in the lower class.
The Black is inferior to the White socially, financially, intellectually, and personally, so it is mercy to them that society guaranteed their living. If there is no slavery, they must beg from door to door. It can't be helped society failed in the northern capitalism but the southern slavery established a better social system and reasonable organization. In the North and South, they both have laboring classes. The North calls them workers under the capitalist system and the South calls them slaves under slavery. The workers of the North have no restrictions economically, socially, or politically by law, whereas the slaves of the South have subordinate positions in society. How would you feel if the South started driving and teaching the North’s workers to overthrow their government and society for a better life, just as the North did to the South?
According to two newspaper articles about Nat Turner's Rebellion —Excerpt from a Richmond (Virginia) Constitutional Whig of August 29, 1831 and The Staunton Spectator, p. 2, November 29, 1859—They reduced and concealed details about rebellion. They want people to feel relieved and didn't want this to cause social and economic unrest. They said that a large majority of Black slaves are happy with the way it is, so it's nothing to worry about. It will be quelled quickly and thinking about future troubles is worthless. They didn't discharge the media's duties by overlooking the motives of the matter. The newspapers feel these disclaimers are necessary because the South might fall of its own weight of slavery which maintains their social system if this is brought to the fore. They didn't want to agitate people with this and take any skeptical view about their slavery system. Also, they wanted to display Southern well shaped power to the North without any weakness. They hope southerners will have no doubt and distrust on slavery which forms the basis of their economic system. Also they don't want southerners to feel some anxiety about all those situations. On northerners, these articles hope they give up emancipation of slaves, and the articles don't want northerners to have new hope from Nat Turner's Rebellion. They don't want to be under the bad influence of this uprising.
I don't believe them because undue pressure inevitably exploded and hiding truth is laid bare sooner or later. Nat Turner's revolt was just the beginning and several riots were suppressed relentlessly after this. For that reason, American slavery went against the times and ran counter to democracy. This is a long way from racial consciousness of Latin-America who realized emancipation of slaves around 1820 (except Brazil). The West Indies, who had well-developed slavery, dissolved slavery after the emancipation in England in 1833. Turner’s rebellion demonstrated to the North the level of anger held by these enslaved, as well as the lengths freedom seekers were prepared to fight for liberty. To the Southerners, they saw their own vulnerability in the most shocking way. Southerners, then, asserted more control over the enslaved by further restricting Black slaves gatherings, travel and education.
The revolt had a profound impact on Southern attitudes towards the "peculiar institution" of slavery. For many southerners it exploded the myth that the slave population was either content or at least congenitally unable to rebel against their inferior status. For other southerners the revolt confirmed in their mind the discontent of slaves and the ever-present menace of rebellion that could topple the southern socio-economic system. For this background, there was publication and organized association against slavery in the North even though Turner's band was hunted down and destroyed after several days. The Southerners started to have a sense of crisis from the powerful Republican Party in 1854.
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division (http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3a05113)
shows us optimistically about the slave’s life, telling how they enjoy their happy life freely after a certain amount of labor in southern plantations. Also it tells us the employees of British factory have lives worse than slaves. This viewpoint might looks rational and logical for supporters of slavery because southern slaves looks a lot happier than laborers in the capitalistic system. This is typical vindication of slavery which developed for 40 years before the Civil War. The controversy over slavery had strengthened in the South after severe criticism from Northern and Western abolishers since 1820. Their grounds for slavery were the regional characteristics (the social system is composed of aristocratic class and slavery), biological inferiority of Blacks, and much better happiness of the slaves than Northern laborers.
Defense of slavery according the Bible scriptures is voluntary interpretation and misunderstanding. It is also inconsistent with modern conception which says men are all equal. Of course the Bible admitted slavery in both of the Old Testament and New Testament. Ephesians (6:5~8) says the slaves should serve their masters as God, but the Israelite slavery in Egypt was political oppression. That was same as Israelites taken prisoner by Babylonia. But all of these scriptures need theological interpretation connected with Christian Redemption. On the contrary, the slavery as a social system is totally different for that matter of binding others lives for sweated labor. I think Biblical slavery is not legal approval of trade in human life or sweatshop labor. Inequality of human society is unavoidable. The past communists tried to build equal society focused on the proletariat, but that was an unattainable attempt because it leads to irregularities and despotism. Regardless of which system, democracy, communism, socialism, or slavery, these are only systems belonging to specified history and meeting the demands of the times. Of course there should be different interpretation according to human rights, social structure, purpose of organization, and standard of value.
The Bible is a book which became infinite in variety with interpretation just like strife between atheists and theists. The acute matter of dividing progressivism and conservatism of Christianity is the Bible interpretation, not Evangelism, Ecumenism, Exclusivism, or Religious Darwinism on a large scale. The sharpness is existence or nonexistence of Biblical criticism. Discrimination of sex is the same context. A female didn't count for the number of persons in Old Testament era. Can we bring this fact to the present day? No way. The matter of patriarchism and discrimination of sex in the Bible can't jump over the periodical limit. The Bible comes with fallacies all the time, just like confrontation between the theory of evolution and the theory of creation. Flawlessness of the Bible is a deadly poison which undermines Christianity. I think that we should not induce literally the Bible scriptures to us rising above time and culture. This article is for the South, who wants to keep slavery, seeking the legitimacy from the Bible scripture. The United States was a Christian nation from the beginning. The origin of slavery is under the command of God and the promise of a legally legitimate social system. This proved enslavement is not immoral behavior religiously by Scriptures. This is trying to argue the unfairness of the North who is dreaming of a confederate unification by using the abolition of slavery as a tool.
Let’s see the excerpt from John C. Calhoun’s Senate speech on the importance of domestic slavery, January 1838. In his opinion, slavery is the traditional family system as continue to exist at home. It is the inherited legacy from ancestors and fundamental integral custom. There is no reason to judge and restraint slavery as unfair and immoral conduct. The controversy with abolition is violence and destruction against social usage following agreement and constitutional law. There is no difference from a plunderer. According to Edmund Ruffin, slavery has existed since ancient times and it has been a survivable system under the social, cultural, and political backgrounds in human history. Thriving in any society, it was indispensable for the maintenance regardless of social organization and system. Also, it is a product of civilization which is beneficial to slaves as well as dominators and those profits gained in a society with slavery, is impossible to acquire under the capitalist system. The value of slave labor claims have dropped but it is generally stable with constant balance. In general opinion, slavery expressed easily abuse, violation of human rights, and labor exploitation, but significant evidence of sustained civilization and social progress is found from the time of slavery.
In the process of the conquest and settlement in the New World, the demand for slave labor was indispensable in plantation agriculture. Aboriginal populations were rapidly diminished for defiance, and slavery was established widely because Black labor power was easy to subordinate. Since African blacks in Virginia from 1619, the imported contract workers were not permanent and secured so the west coast of African zone was transformed into a slave-hunting area. They were a major force of tobacco, indigo, and rice producing areas. Since the mid-18th century, the tobacco industry fell into recession and slaves were emancipated in the North following the Enlightenment and the humanitarian way of thinking after independence from the British. But slavery was continued in the Southern despite strong opposition. Moreover, the cotton kingdom was built based on slavery in the southern continent after cotton the spinning machine was invented in 1763. Imported slaves were banned in 1808, but slavery itself evolved to incorporate the reality of African slave labor exploitation and became more miserable along with racial prejudice. Nat Turner's rebellion in 1831 as the beginning of the slave revolt occurred but all of them were ruthlessly suppressed and association of opposition to slavery was founded in the North. Southern had been threatened because emancipation of slaves became influential politically along with founding of the Republican movement in 1854 which mobilized opposition to slavery.
The protective trade policy has become a point of controversy according to calculation of loss and gain for both South and North. The North required protective tariffs for commerce and industry, and the Southern agricultural production was in favor of free trade. Also politically, the North needed the strong central government for the stability and prosperity; on the contrary, in the Southern province each state had its own system. For that reason, slavery was intertwined with both subjective theory of attention and problems over time. Jefferson opposed slavery in 1775 according equality of all men, and Charles Sumner claimed and passionately argued for abolitionism by his opinion of the unique nature of humans: created in the image of God, degraded into the property list in the North. The radical theory led to a full-fledged opposition movement formed. The Anti-slavery Association emerged after Missouri's trembling in 1819-1821. Fierce denunciation of slavery had been concentrated on human rights blaming slavery for barbarous acts. In contrast, the South had established a defense against abolitionists' and attacked the poverty of the Northern working class. The Southerners judged the gruesome scene of the Northern workers as worse moral sin and their commercially unproductive wealth from the North was called moral evil when compared to Southern sacred society and its agricultural systems. All Southern ideology was based on slavery sticking to the whole society, and they seceded from the federal government for their safety and independent government.
Thus the Civil War finally broke out in 1861, and President Lincoln proclaimed the liberation of slaves in 1863. The Civil War killed 38,000 African American and it was an opportunity for the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment. Then in 1888 the liberation of slaves in Brazil ended slavery in modern society. Since the beginning of the slave trade, at least 12 million Black slaves were sold to the New World, and some opinions said it is around 30 million. Modern slavery is an indelible stain in the history of mankind. As a result, impersonal social forces caused the Civil War, and brought the United States to unity. The causes of the Civil War were social and economic situations, such as poverty and wealth. Two economic groups based on commerce and plantation slavery fought on the ground of political governing. Now slavery still remained all around as racial consciousness from long history racism, even though it never being received recognition from any other country in the present age.
If they really believed that people of African descent were by nature inferior to whites, and
congenitally incapable of rising to the intellectual, economic, social, and political level of white people, how do we explain that they put so much energy in passing laws and creating an environment that prohibited blacks from even trying? I think, even from the beginning, it was not their concern that Blacks were the inferior class. They just needed their slaves. There was no appropriate race for being slaves but Black. Slaves were their property of their personal possessions as long as somebody didn’t provoke a quarrel. The fundamental reason for slavery advocate was sustenance. Who would replace their benefit if there were no slaves? There was no answer. Inferiority of the Black slaves was only their long bias and prejudice for subordinate Blacks as slaves. Their opinion that Southern slaves are happier and more stable lives than Northern capitalist workers were justification for maintaining slavery. They had been living in society which neglected slaves' life and social care. They knew that Blacks are not animals or between humans and animals, but they are same race as Whites if they were educated and lived normal lives as a man of noble character. Even though they treated Black slaves as close to the animals, they knew a Black is a human being who has intelligence, heart, and righteousness.