Did you get hard reading this /lgbt/?

Most likely bullshit. Most of the mistreatment of American slaves is greatly exaggerated today.

Yes, some slaves were outrageously abused. But so are some children today. So are some animals. Some people are monsters and simply abuse their dependents.

Read "A South-Side View of Slavery," by Nehemiah Adams. He was a staunch abolitionist, who went to live in the Deep South for a few months in his 50s. It was the first time he'd actually ever even BEEN to the South, and it shattered his perceptions of what slavery was actually like. He wrote "South-Side" to explain how much abolitionist propaganda had skewed the story of how blacks were actually treated.

>>8657417
I'd be if I read stories about female slaves, Im agp and need to selfinsert to get turned on

>>8657434
Or you read a few books by actual slaves. Like Frederick Douglass.

Nehemiah Adams wanted slaves to remain slaves because keeping them docile meant keeping them religious.

If you think mistreatment of slaves was 'exaggerated' and it was fine, you don't know anything about humans and power.

>>8657434
E D G Y

>>8657474
There are numerous slave accounts out there, and they do not all agree with each other, anon. Some slaves had terrible experiences and others had quite amicable relationships with their owners. Douglass's has had its authenticity questioned many times, e.g.:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/douglass/support2.html

(Note, at the bottom of the page it says, "This attempt to invalidate the Narrative of Frederick Douglass, only confirms its correctness, as Mr. Thompson admits every thing but the cruelty described by Douglass," which is nuts since the entire point of the letter is the argument that Thompson does not believe the men accused could do the things they were accused of.)

Of course people cover up for abusers all the time. People may honestly believe that an abuser in their life couldn't do such a terrible thing out of their sight - but they do. I find it more interesting that Thompson specifically criticises that Douglass's book gets the customs and culture of his region wrong. This is also the observation that "South-Side" makes: that abolitionist propaganda gets the customs of slavery (like routinely separating children from their mothers; Adams says that this occurred, but rarely) wrong. It strengthens the case that Douglass's book was not entirely written by Douglass.

Also, I should note that Douglass wrote a letter to his former owner later in life, saying that he had heard the man had emancipated his slaves and was treating Douglass's grandmother kindly. This is rather odd, since it's not all that common for people who've been life-long abusers of others to reform (maybe 5%).

I didn't say you shouldn't take "South-Side" with a grain of salt, but you should take EVERY account with a grain of salt. Everybody has an agenda. Adams did indeed have his own reasons for shifting his views; this is ignoring that he spent many years prior with completely different ones, or that his book was controversial at best in his social circle.