“True Slavery Was Never Practiced in the South”

EverythingYouWereTaught-COVER-2012You can’t make this stuff up. I’ve written about Sea Raven Press in the past, specifically in reference to their book on Nathan Bedford Forrest for teens. This particular title, Everthing You Were Taught About the Civil War is Wrong, Ask a Southerner, seems to be the most popular given the number of times I’ve seen it referenced on certain websites. Here is a list of a few of the corrections to what you learned. I’ve highlighted a few of my favorites. I particularly like the claim that Abraham Lincoln both wanted to isolate blacks in their own state and transport them back to Africa. Apparently, these were not mutually exclusive options. 

• American slavery got its start in the North
the American abolition movement began in the South
• most Southern generals did not own slaves, and many, like Robert E. Lee, were abolitionists
• many Northern generals, like U.S. Grant, owned slaves and said they would not fight for abolition
• according to the 1860 Census a mere 4.8 percent of Southerners owned slaves, 95.2 percent did not
• Abraham Lincoln was a white separatist who wanted to send all blacks “back to Africa”
Jefferson Davis adopted a black boy and freed Southern slaves before the North did
• Lincoln was not against slavery, he was against the spread of slavery
• Lincoln supported the idea of corralling African-Americans in their own all-black state
true slavery was never practiced in the South
• Lincoln “won” both the 1860 and 1864 elections with less than 50 percent of the American vote
Lincoln was a big government liberal, Davis was a small government conservative
• there were tens of thousands of both black and Native-American slave owners
• Lincoln started the Civil War, not the South
• the North fought to “preserve the Union,” not to abolish slavery
• the South fought to uphold the original Constitution, not to maintain slavery
it would have cost ten times less to free the slaves and reimburse their owners than fight the War
the Northern armies were racially segregated, the Southern armies were racially integrated
• after emancipation 95 percent of all blacks voluntarily remained in the South
between 300,000 and 1 million African-Americans fought for the Confederacy
• Europe would have supported the South but she was scared off by Lincoln’s war threats
• Northern prisons had higher death rates than Southern ones
the original Ku Klux Klan was an anti-Yankee organization with thousands of black members
• “Reconstruction” was a dismal failure, which is why the South is still recovering from the War

Now I know that 1 million black Confederates seems like a high number, but… 🙂 Hope you enjoyed it.

Civil War Memory has moved to Substack! Don’t miss a single post. Subscribe below.

56 comments… add one
  • John DeRienzo Jan 30, 2018 @ 6:03

    Check the fruit on the tree of this logic. The taste will tell you if the tree is in the right Grove.

  • TheTodd Jul 27, 2016 @ 11:29

    There are a lot of points here and it would be impossible to address them in one post, but there’s one I will address, and that the point that Lincoln didn’t want to end slavery, just stop the spread of slavery.
    He wanted to end it from the beginning, but recognized that he didn’t have the power to do so, so while his strategy at the outset was to slow the spread of slavery, eventually ending it was always the goal.

  • lakawak Jul 6, 2015 @ 23:46

    DIRECT quote from Lincoln saying that if he could preserve the union without freeing the slaves, he would. IF he could preserve the union by freeing them all, he would. If he could preserve the union by freeing some, but keeping others as slaves, he would. In other words, he VERY clearly fought the war to preserve the union…not free the slaves.

    • Kevin Levin Jul 7, 2015 @ 2:42

      Lincoln said quite a lot over the course of the war.

      • Ken Noe Jul 7, 2015 @ 3:29

        Of course when he said that, he had already written the Emancipation Proclamation.

  • Bryan Cheeseboro Mar 28, 2014 @ 11:07

    I bet $20 that this book is on the shelf at that Sam Davis Youth Camp.

  • Betty Giragosian Jul 21, 2013 @ 4:23


  • Neil Hamilton Jul 18, 2013 @ 21:40


    Paula Deen might disagree with you.

  • Bob Huddleston Jul 18, 2013 @ 18:43

    Kevin, I assume you will be adopting it as a required text book. But you will have to hurry before Brooks’ students buy up all of them.

  • Phil Hopersberger Jul 18, 2013 @ 13:06

    As my pap used to say, “That dog won’t hunt.”

    • Mike Rogers Jul 18, 2013 @ 14:21

      Yeah, but he’s gotten Kevin’s followers all riled up. And don’t they say that there’s no such thing as bad publicity?

  • texjetman Jul 18, 2013 @ 12:47

    Lee Ann Womack!!!
    Well, that changes everything!

  • Yulanda Burgess Jul 18, 2013 @ 5:46

    Surprised? No to the H.

    Speechless? Yes.

    Sadden? Yes.

    Recovery = chocolate!!!!

  • Patrick Young Jul 18, 2013 @ 4:01

    You missed the best part. Here is the author’s bio:

    Lochlainn Seabrook is an unreconstructed Southern author of over thirty adult books, with a twenty-five year background in the fields of the American Civil War, anthropology, the paranormal, etymology, comparative mythology and religion, and thealogy (female-based religion). The grandson of an Appalachian coal-mining family, Mr. Seabrook is a seventh generation Kentuckian and the sixth great-grandson of the Earl of Oxford. Sometimes referred to as the “American Robert Graves” (after the prolific English writer, poet, and author), Mr. Seabrook’s literary works have been endorsed by leading authorities, bestselling authors, celebrities, noted scientists, esteemed Southern organizations, and well respected academicians from around the world. He is cousins with Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Johnny Cash, the Judds, Miley Cyrus, and Lee Ann Womack, and lives with his wife and family in historic Middle Tennessee.

    • Kevin Levin Jul 18, 2013 @ 4:10

      Like I said, you can’t make this stuff up. 🙂

    • Ken Noe Jul 18, 2013 @ 5:35

      Don’t forget his co-written volume, “Princess Diana: Modern-Day Moon-Goddess.”

      • Kevin Levin Jul 18, 2013 @ 5:44


        I don’t think you can truly understand his Civil War books without first reading this book.

  • Bryan Cheeseboro Jul 18, 2013 @ 1:34

    If the South had one million Black soldiers, how did they manage to lose the war?

  • Jan Dresler, Denmark. Jul 17, 2013 @ 22:57

    I’m from Denmark, so I kindly ask….. Certain cicles = Lunatic Asylum’s ?

  • R. Alex Raines Jul 17, 2013 @ 22:37

    O, wow. First, here’s the problems with Amazon reviews in certain instances. To give a fair review, you have to purchase the foul thing. Read it? I’m not sure how much. But you have to buy it. Second, I wonder if the publication of a book about the use of fallacious logic that was basically this book annotated with explanations of each logical fallacy ok as fair use. Because, just from the highlights, there’s quite a bit of cherry-picking going on regarding Lincoln. Third, I promise there was a third but I am enraged to the point of forgetting it.

  • AD Powell (@mischling2nd) Jul 17, 2013 @ 21:23

    The federal government could not have purchased freedom for all the slaves. Slavery had become not merely an economic issue for the South but also a matter of “honor.”


  • William Underhill Jul 17, 2013 @ 18:16

    I checked Amazon’s reviews of the book. Golly! It has to be the best book ever! There were 22 reviews, 18 five stars, 3 three stars, and 1 one star.

    • Kevin Levin Jul 17, 2013 @ 18:26

      It’s a very popular book in certain circles.

  • Bob Spahr Jul 17, 2013 @ 17:03

    It is true that Lee freed his slaves before the war and that Lincoln had said in speeches that Blacks were not equal to whites.

    • Kevin Levin Jul 17, 2013 @ 18:02

      And it is true that both claims are so overly simplistic as to be rendered useless.

      • Kenneth Althaus Apr 14, 2017 @ 19:15

        Your reconstructionist theory may need more review. It is documented that General Lee freed his slaves & that 1 of them owned the largest plantation in SC. All i see here is opinion with nothing to back up your claims.

    • Greg Eatroff Mar 28, 2014 @ 10:55

      It is NOT true that Lee freed his slaves before the war. The terms of the will under which Lee inherited slaves from his father in law in 1857 *required* him to free those slaves within five years. He freed some of them (the ones not safely behind Union lines) in 1862. All his slaves who were within Union lines were entitled to their freedom under the Confiscation Act of 1862.

      It’s true that Grant was a slaveowner before the war — his father in law gave him a slave as a gift. What Confederate propagandists leave out is that Grant freed that slave, and unlike Lee did so voluntarily.

  • docwood Jul 17, 2013 @ 16:31

    I’m speechless.

  • guitarmandanga Jul 17, 2013 @ 14:06

    My main question is how he defines “true slavery,” and why southern slavery doesn’t qualify. Is it the fact that slaves in the south could, in theory, be off the plantation as long as they had a pass? Is it the fact that southern churches gave at least lip-service to the humanity of slaves inasmuch as they ought to be baptized? Or is it something else? And doesn’t much of this criteria apply to most other slave societies, comparatively? IS there such a thing as “true slavery”? Again, the matter of defining it is what interests me here…although I can’t say I’ll ever pick up the book to see whether he defines it or not.

    • Kevin Levin Jul 17, 2013 @ 14:13

      My guess is that you will find very little, if any, analysis in this book. Don’t lose sleep over it. 🙂

  • grandadfromthehills Jul 17, 2013 @ 13:58

    Well, as a Southroner, perhaps there may be a trace of truth in a couple of lines. The destruction of Arkansas during the Civil War was so complete that it has remained behind many other states. At least that is a subjective point-of-view having spent many years in Arkansas. Mississippi and Alabama also had problems and were into the 20th century before a recovery was strong.

    Historically, U.S. Grant’s wife came from a slave holding family and she did own a few before the war. I do not think that makes Grant a slave owner…

    Are you sure this is not a comic book??? It has some real laughers! Can this be serious? Thanks for the info on the publisher. I may have to get this book so I can have some serious frivolity!

    Sam Vanderburg
    Gun Barrel City, TX

    • Kevin Levin Jul 17, 2013 @ 14:14

      This has absolutely nothing to do with North v. South. This is just plain stupidity – nothing more, nothing less.

  • Chris L. Robinson Jul 17, 2013 @ 13:07

    You can only say it in your Austin Power’s voice: “One MILLION black confederates!”

  • Chris L. Robinson Jul 17, 2013 @ 13:05

    I was going to ask you this morning if you’d written about this book!

  • Brooks D. Simpson Jul 17, 2013 @ 13:03

    I believe that black Klansmen are even rarer than black Confederates.

    • Andy Hall Jul 17, 2013 @ 14:29

      I saw one in Blazing Saddles just the other day. They couldn’t put it in the movies if it wasn’t true.

      • Rob Baker Jul 17, 2013 @ 19:47

        Always pleasant to see a Blazing Saddles reference.

      • Mike Rogers Jul 18, 2013 @ 14:17

        Very well played, Mr. Hall.

  • Mike Rogers Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:58

    What?? Huh?? Kevin – I think your new blog software has manipulated and rearranged history. I’d ask for a refund

  • Scott MacKenzie Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:55

    One step forward, two steps back.

  • Greg Eatroff Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:54

    Lee, an abolitionist? That’s an outright lie. He detested abolitionists, and said so repeatedly. But then, anyone who would claim hundreds of thousands of blacks fought for the south has clearly seceded from reality and is far past the point where he can possibly be reasoned with.

  • Lisa Laskin Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:52

    That snorting sound you hear from over Cambridge way is me trying to contain my laughter.

  • GBrasher Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:51

    Kevin, the fact that you dig this kind of hilarity up is why you are “The Man.”

  • James F. Epperson Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:17


  • Rob Baker Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:14

    the American abolition movement began in the South

    Is the author talking about Elihu Embree’s The Emancipator published in 1820 out of Jonesboro, TN?

    • Kevin Levin Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:15

      Unlikely, given that he had Yankee blood. 🙂

      • Rob Baker Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:16


      • Elefante Feb 21, 2017 @ 12:29

        He doesn’t need 1000 books. He needs two documents, easily accessible.

        Lincoln’s open reply to Horrace Greeley and Lee’s own statement concerning slavery.

        • Kevin Levin Feb 21, 2017 @ 12:43

          Thanks for taking the time to comment.

    • M.D. Blough Jul 17, 2013 @ 14:02

      Is it something earlier than the 1688 Germantown (PA) Declaration? Also, I’m fascinated, what is “true slavery” in the author’s judgment if what existed in the US didn’t qualify?

      • Kevin Levin Jul 17, 2013 @ 14:03

        Perhaps there is another form of slavery that the author wishes had been utilized.

    • JE Jul 18, 2013 @ 4:34

      Even if he was, The Philanthropist, first published in Mount Pleasant, Ohio by Charles Osborne, predated Embree’s paper by three years. Osborne’s paper is considered to be the very first to openly advocate for the immediate abolition of slavery. A simple google search would have produced this for Seabrook…

  • Chuck Jul 17, 2013 @ 12:10

    I’ll bet he has mountains of evidence to back up his claims. Psych.

Leave a Reply to Kevin LevinCancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *