"Slavery as practiced in the south was especially bad--- it had never been as oppressive, with chains, beatings, etc., in ANY culture. NO ONE ELSE ever treated other men like that in history. NO ONE."
Chung, you're amusing, as usual. It would enlighten you to learn a bit about the slaves who were sent on down to Hati and South America.
Not only did southern slaves rarely see chains they were seldom beaten, owners can't get much production out of ill treated field hands and that was their value. In general they lived in better conditions than most free subsistance farmers; better housed, fed and medicated. Slavery was no bed of roses but neither was the lives of most whites. If slaves had been as ill treated as you have been taught there would have been a wild blood bath after the War, as occured against the French in Hati after those slaves revolted. But it didn't happen here and a LOT of suddenly freed but pennyless blacks owed their lives to the charity of similar near starving whites after blue coats confuscated livestock and food stuffs all across the south. In fact, during "Reconstruction", murders, house burnings and rapes against whites and blacks more often came from drunken blue coats than vengeful blacks.
There were valid reasons the angriest, bloodiest race riots of the 60s were in the north and black anger up there still percolates over the way hopeful black migrants after mid 1865 were treated. Nothing in the South equals the still heated black rage in DC, Phillidelphia, Newark, New Yawk, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, et al. Including California, lotsa blue coats went out there too.
