What Constitutes Sound Logic?

Identity Dixie recently published parts one and two of guest contributor, Jeb Smith’s, excellent several-parts-long essay apparently aimed at dispelling common myths surrounding antebellum slavery. In reading part II of Smith’s Life of a Southern Slave, I was reminded of a passage contained in the introduction to Andersonville: A Story of Rebel Prisons, by John McElroy. As I explained to Mr. Smith in lieu of quoting the passage in question, the author of the introductory text – Robert McCune – “is herein invoking abolitionist leader Theodore Weld’s “sound philosophy” in vindication of McElroy’s unhinged, hate-filled ravings against all things Southern, liberally interspersed throughout [McElroy’s] book.” Mr. Smith in turn replied to my comment in part by way of stating (paraphrase) that notwithstanding that Weld’s facts were off in his argument, his logic was nevertheless sound.

We (Mr. Smith & I) can certainly agree that Theodore Weld’s facts were off when he wrote Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses, but we must perhaps “agree to disagree” when it comes to the issue of soundness in Weld’s logic. Not to be contrarian with someone who has done us all a service in his essay(s), but I would nevertheless argue, and do argue, that Weld’s logic is decidedly unsound, and the explanation for my saying so will form the bulk of the rest of this article.

I would agree with the notion that Weld’s logic is sound *if* the conclusions he carefully leads his readers to arrive at did not derive from any number of pre-established pretexts and false premises. E.g. Weld writes in his celebrated tome thusly: “Suppose I should seize you, rob you of your liberty, drive you into the field, and make you work without pay as long as you lived.” He then employs the old trick of asking his readers to arrive at the only right conclusion his (false) premises will admit, to wit: “Would that be justice? Would it be kindness? Or would it be monstrous injustice and cruelty?”

Well, obviously it would be “monstrous injustice and cruelty” for one to “seize a man,” and to “rob him of his liberty,” and to “drive him into the field,” “and make him work without pay as long as he lived.” Duh! But our master logician and apparent admirer of multiple-choice answer form curiously fails to give his readers the option of selecting (d) “none of the above.” I’ve smelled this same specie of rat before, and I do believe I smell its distinctive odor here. Its given name is Theo Weld, but it belongs to that specie of vermin in human form called trickster or shyster!

In any case, the correct answer is (d) because none of Weld’s presuppositions squares with truth or fact; it’s not a correct (to say nothing of unbiased) rendition of what *really* happened, in other words; it is in fact a fabrication. All of it. We won’t address all of it for brevity’s sake, but let us take Mr. Weld’s “and make him work without pay as long as he lived” premise as our example and bring it into finer focus.

You and I both know better than that, dear reader, and the contents of Mr. Smith’s O.P. bear witness to our knowledge of the facts. Southern slaves were paid for their labor, they just weren’t paid a regular wage. If any one of us were *literally* “made to work without pay as long as [we] lived,” there would be no occasion for having this discussion for starters (since one or the both of us would be long-since dead). Being paid a regular (hourly or whatever) wage for one’s labor is fine’n’all as far as it goes, but then one has to appropriate his earnings to meet his and his family’s wants and needs as best as he can, after the tax collectors and all the non-producing middle-men get their cuts, that is.

What Southern slave ever existed who wasn’t well fed, wasn’t well housed and well clad; who wasn’t, moreover, gainfully employed and a “skilled laborer” of one sort or another; who wasn’t in fact and otherwise well provided for and well cared for all the days of his life, I ask. What Southern slave ever existed, once more, who was not insulated by virtue thereof, against being robbed of his health and substance, by that class of vermin called men who prey on the weak and the poor and the ignorant among us?

I could easily destroy Weld’s “beautiful hypotheses” otherwise by the introduction of additional “ugly facts” he or his kind would never be interested in, but that is not my purpose if I had the time. My purpose is simply to defend the integrity of my ancestors by way of setting the record straight, and I’m intentionally “preaching to the choir” in so doing. I have no interest in debating the matter with anyone because, as I’ve noted many times before, debate more often than not gets us nowhere fast, so it is generally a net waste of mental energy that would be better spent on something more sensible and productive. Plus, I flatter myself that I don’t need no more practice, as the adage goes. However, given that my kids and extended family read our content as well, I can’t very well justify letting such falsehoods go unanswered, which might be misconstrued by some as an inability on my part to answer them.

Mr. Smith and I agree that the facts of the case are clearly and overwhelmingly on our side of the issue, notwithstanding our disagreement on the logic thing. Meanwhile, facts and truth certainly *can* destroy myths, as Mr. Smith rightly notes in his reply to my comment. The brutal reality, however, is that all too often people choose to believe, or to embrace, myth over facts and truth. I’m not sure I fully understand the psychology behind consciously embracing falsehood and myth over truth and facts, but I certainly understand the unfortunate reality that more of such people exist than most any of us would care to enumerate. The scary part is that these same people vote, serve on juries, police us all in various and sundry ways, and even raise and educate our children in our steads, etc. Examples could certainly be multiplied, but doing so would amount to a superfluous digression. And I ain’t into all that, as y’all know.

In parting for now, I recommend Dr. Dabney’s A Defense of Virginia and the South, as well as much of Volume IV of that divine’s Discussions, for examples of unassailable logic per the slavery question, and others connected with it one way or another.

God bless the Southland!