moral toughness. the quality which made men work instead of weak on the hostile shores of new england. which bled mortally, yet never died on a hundred fields and oceans. which brought with them first only their pride and the railroads.

>> after three years of research, last november, my book, "myths & realities of american slavery," was published by birdstreet press in pennsylvania. i've been very pleased with the book's acceptance and its critical acclaim. it's about to go into its second printing and i've had a number of people tell me that the book has fulfilled a need that we have in american history. it's been somewhat surprising to me that the three most common questions i get about my book is, are questions that really don't relate to the book's content. they really relate more to the writing of the book. the questions i get most common

is "why did i write this book," "why do we have a need for this book," and how did i go researching the book. why would i write this book? why would a middle-aged white native southerner write a book about american blacks? first of all, it's not a book just about american blacks. it is about the institution of slavery and all aspects of it. so it's a little more encompassing than just about a group of people. let me give you some of the reasons why i did write the book. one is, i just dearly love history. i've been a student of history since a very, very early age. i remember when my mother used to read me stories about the fall of the alamo and other historical tales and i guess i get my love of history from my late mother.

now, i basically tried to do the same thing with my kids. i have twin daughters, and rather than reading them bedtime stories, i read to them about the battle of gettysburg. and, i drug them to every national battlefield there is in the united states. as they got older, i'd say by the time they were 7 or 8 years old, they could give a pretty good discourse on the military strategies of robert e. lee versus ulysses s. grant. i knew i had probably gone too far. they were about 5 or 6 years old, i got a note from their sunday school teacher. and the note said, mr. perry, we have problems with your twin daughters in the sunday school class. my first thought was, can you flunk sunday school?

so, i finally met with the sunday school teacher. and she said, well, mr. perry, the problem is this -- you see, i asked the sunday school class who walked on water. and your daughter, mandy answered, robert e. lee. and then, after i corrected your daughter mandy, your other daughter, lindy said, well maybe jesus did it, but robert e. lee did it first. the second reason i wrote the book is that i saw a very strong need for this type of work. i saw the need for a well-documented book that had facts in it. and would let the reader decide for himself or herself the true story of slavery in america. the final reason i accepted the challenge of writing this

particular book is i had a lot of questions about this, what some people call the peculiar institution of slavery. i've always -- to be honest with you, been very confused. i've been a student of the war between the states history since i was a small child. and the slavery issue just confused me. i really didn't understand it. and i would imagine if you asked most americans today why we had the civil war, they would probably say, it was to end the institution of slavery. now, that certainly was a result of the war. but, was that the cause of the war? there were a number of things that just led me to study this a bit further. most early on in studying t white southerners did not own slaves. the majority did not, yet they strongly supported the

confederacy, and researching my own past, i found that my direct descendants, none of them owned slaves. yet all of them, who were of military age and actually younger than recognized military age, served in the confederate military. i also collect civil war documents, and i've read literally thousands of soldiers' letters. and never once have i read a northern soldier letter that wrote back home and said "i'm fighting to free the slaves." no, they always wrote, or usually wrote back and said "i'm fighting to preserve the union." i've read hundreds and hundreds of southern soldier letters and never once have i read a letter that said "we're fighting for the south to defend the institution of slavery." what they usually said was "we're fighting to protect our homes.

we're fighting to protect our families." so, what i thought would be a magazine article has turned out to be a book. and it became a book for two basic reasons. one reason is, i was amazed, once i started researching the institution of american slavery, what i found out. i was just astounded at all the misconceptions that we have as americans about the institution of slavery and i thought others might be interested in this, as well. the second reason was, i thought it would be a timely work in regard to the nation as it debates the issue of slave reparations. and that really brings us to the second most-asked question of me, why this book now. why are you dredging up things that happened well over 100 years ago. when i started writing the book, it was long before the

tragic events of 9-11, it was obviously before the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq. and these events have really taken the slave reparation issue off the front pages of our papers and out of your top of mind awarenein.pite of that, mean the slave reparation issue has gone away. there are those in the united states who strongly advocate slave reparations. evidenced by a number of lawsuits that have been filed just within the past year. how can we make a decision on this issue without the facts? and that's a reason that i published the book. another reason is, that i thought it would be a timely book, is, actions by the u.s. congress that affect the national park service. they have a relatively new mandate to work on the interpretation of the war

between the states at the battlefields, adding information about the institution of slavery. earlier this month, the chief historian of the national park service said at a seminar i attended at hill college down in texas, that the core cause "core cause" of the war between the states was slavery. is that true >> my book was written to help try to answer those questions. now, with that in mind, let me tell you the approach i used in writing the book. there are really five things guided me. one was, i wanted to tell the true story of slavery in america, and i wanted it based on facts devoid of political correctness. i didn't care about political -- what was politically correct or not. i wanted to give the reader the facts. secondly, i wanted to use as

many firsthand accounts as possible. what better way to learn about a time period than the people that lived in that time period. thirdly, i wanted to look at other scholarly works and studies on the issue of american slavery and fourth, i wanted to have a book that gave you lots of references. this book has over 600 endnotes, it has an appendix that lists all the resources so you can go back and see where i got my information. and finally, i wanted a book that -- where the reader is not preached to. i wanted a book where they can read the book and make your own decision. it's hard to completely edit out your own personal feelings but i tried to do that where i could. i give you the facts and say you decide, here's the case. the third most common question i receive is, how did i do the research. well, i did a lot of traveling, and i did a lot of what my wife

called line time. the book was -- library time. the book was using individual resources where possible, i looked at plantation records and fortunately the owners of the plantations were great recordkeepers and it gives us some historical data. i looked at slave market records, period publications, newspaper accounts, books on slavery from that time period. i looked at firsthand accounts from former slaves. various books, the abolitionists produced a number of books and you have to be very careful when you read those books and i explain that in my book. i also look at post war biographies and autobiographies of former slaves such as booker t-washington's autobiography. i looked at some letters and diaries. one thing i used extensively is the federal writers' project, more commonly known as the

slave narratives of some of you i'm sure are familiar with the slave narratives. it was during the 1930's that the federal government hired a large number of unemployed writers and sent them across the south to interview former slaves. these slaves were up in years because this was the 1930's. and they interviewed 2,200 former slaves. that represents about 2% of the then living former slaves. they transscribed, they asked the former slaves questions about their life as slaves and they transscribed the answers. and today, we have 3.5 million words of the former slaves. so, i used in my book a lot of quotes from these former slaves. again, what better way to understand a time period when you have the actual words of those people that lived as

slaves in america. another thing i used extensively was the 1860 united states census. what a great resource. right on the eve of the war, the war as you know began in 1861, the year before we have a complete snapshot of american society right on the eve of the war. i spent an entire chapter in the book analyzing the data from the 1860sen says. i thought it was 1860 census. a lot of people said i skipped over that chapter where you had a lot of the charts and statistics but i thought it was my very best chapter, i looked at the data, analyzed it and i think i presented it in some unique ways that will give you insight into american society right before the war between the states. finally, i used a lot of existing scholarly research

from the classic early slave studies by u.b. phillips to more contemporary scholars like eugene genovesi and ira berlin. i also used a book called "time on the cross." if you have not read that book and want to know about slavery, get "time on the cross" which was published in the 1970's. i use many, many other studies and different scholarly looks at the american slavery. i thought i'd spend theme i hav by reviewing some of the myths and some of the realities. but before we do that, we've got to do a mind shift right now. any time you're going back in history, you've got to change your mindset. like a quote from a french philosopher that said "when you travel to the past, leave yourself behind."

former chief historian of the national parks service ed bar said last year "we can't judge those people by 2002 standards. we have to judge them by 1860 standards. and what were those standards? in the 1860's and before? like it or not, from the very founding of this nation, until slavery was abolished by the 13th amendment, slavery was legal in the united states of america. it was a legal institution. it was protected by american law. customs and morees. it's the same as the institution of marriage is protected by law today. the institution of slavery was protected back in those days. now, this is a hard leap to make in our minds. to go back and look at something that was quite legal,

very well accepted by most americans, even though today, you may view slavery as morally reprehensible. ok, let's look at some of the myths and some of the realities. one myth is about slavery itself. and the first part of my book i spend time talking about how far back slavery really goes. slavery, in my opinion predates history. i think we've had slaves since the very beginning of recorded history. we find slavery throughout the bible, both the old testament, and paul in the new testament gives instructions on how to treat your slaves. we find slavery in most all of the ancient societies. another common myth is about african slavery. african slavery goes back long before the first africans were ever shipped to the western

hemisphere. there was a flourishing african slave trade market long before the europeans discovered the new world. african slaves were transported along the subsaharan slave route not west, but east. they were transported out of afrom to the east. african slaferse were found in ancient greece, ancient rome, and the near east. myth and reality, most slaves were sent from africa to what would become the united states. that's a myth. only about 6%, or in other words, about 600,000 slaves were sent to the western hemisphere, made it to what would become the united states. so, only 6% of the slaves made it to america. the united states.

what western hemisphere nation received the most slaves? it was the nation of brazil. the trans-atlantic voyage called by many the middle passage, from africa to the western hemisphere was quite deadly for slaves. is that a myth or is that reality? that, indeed, is reality. any trans-atlantic voyage in the 17th through 19th centuries was indeed a very dangerous journey. at the beginning of the slave trade process, the death rate among slaves was about 20%. so, pretty high death rate, about 20% of the slaves did not make it to the western hemisphere. however, as time progressed, that death rate began to drop. by the time slave trade ended, the death rate hovered about

4%, so from a death rate of about 20% to about 4%. interestingly, though, if you look at the trans-atlantic death rates of european immigrants to the western hemisphere, the death rates are about the same as the slave trade, if you compare it to the final 4% number. many americans are confused about who brought slaves from africa to the western hemisphere. the process was relatively simple. first of all, it was primarily africans that went and captured other africans. that would be brought to the coast of western africa, and they would be traded -- they would trade those captured africans to europeans who would make themselves and then transport them to the western hemisphere. it was first the portuguese.

it was then the spanish. then, the dutch. to a lesser extent, the french. and finally, the british. these were the europeans countries that did most of the transportation of slaves from africa to the western hemisphere. and also, there were some americans involved. it was not southerners. it was new englanders that got into the slave trade business toward the latter part of the slave trade experience. the new england slave traders brought in about a third of all the slaves that were brought to the united states. the numbers vary but the total number of africans that were -- that survived and made it to the western hemisphere, you get different numbers by different scholars but approximately 10 million. so, about the same number that were shipped through the transsahara route came west to

the western hemisphere. >> many americans are, i think, confused about where were slaves. were slaves only in the south? is that a myth, or is that a reality? slaves initially were found throughout the colonies. at one time, there were more slaves in new york city than any other american city. myth or reality -- all white southerners owned slaves. again, fortunately, we're blessed with the 1860 united states census. as i mentioned, i spent an entire chapter analyzing the data, and if you take every white man, every white woman, and every white child, and you

calculate using the 1860 census, the percent of slave ownership, it's 95% of these people did not own slaves. 95%. some people quoted as high as 97. the actual correct number is 95%. but that's not really a very fair way to look at it, because, women and children typically did not own property back then. i thought the fairer way to look at it and really give us a good idea of prevalence of slave ownership in the south would be to look at it by household. and if you do that, you will find that only 26% of southern -- southern white households owned slaves according to the 1860 census. that means three out of four

southern -- white southern families did not own slaves. now, every one, or a lot of people, seem to have this stereotypical image of the south. tara. with the plantation home, and the white columns and the live oak trees and the spanish moss. and you had hundreds, if not thousands of slaves out in the fields, toiling away. is that a myth? or is that a reality? again, let's look at the facts. we've got the 1860 united states census. there were nearly 400,,000 slave owners in the south and me owned about four million slaves. you do the math. what's the average? the average is 10.3 slaves per

slave owner. so, hundreds of slaves, thousands of slaves, the arithmetic average is 10.3. listen to this, again, according to the 1860 u.s. census, 20% of all slave owners owned only one slave. 20%. 60% of all slave owners owned five or fewer slaves. 71% of the slave owners owned fewer than 10 slaves. 97% of the slave owners owned fewer than 50 slaves. 99% of all the slave owners owned fewer than 100 slaves. and there were only 15 -- 15 people, not percent, only 15 people in the entire south that owned 500 or more slaves.

only 15. so i think we do have a stereotypical image of the american south prior to the war between the states. that is not correct. myth or reality -- all blacks in the south were slaves. another myth. there were free blacks in the united states. the common perception might be that most of the free blacks lived up north. that's a myth. the majority of free blacks, 53%, lived in the south. myth or reality, only whites in the south owned slaves. well, for one thing, you're excluding the american indian, because they observed slaves. they owned slaves. the other group you're

excluding are the free blacks. free blacks in the united states owned slaves. i talk about several free blacks in the book that i found quite fascinating. one is anthony johnson. and tradition was that mr. johnson was owned the first dutch slave ship that landed at jamestown, virginia, in 1619 and he was one of the 20 slaves that were led off the boat in jamestown. by 1623, anthony johnson had worked himself out of slavery and was a free man. and in 1694, anthony johnson won an important court case in virginia, and it set some precedent for future such cases because anthony johnson's slave sued him for freedom. and this court case, which ruled for johnson against

johnson's slave, said that johnson's slave would continue to be a slave. and that set some important legal precedents. another individual that i talk about in the book is william ellison. and mr. ellison was a free black in south carolina. he was one of the most successful slave owners in the south prior to the outbreak of the war. he was a cotton begin builder. and if you wanted a cotton gin built right, you went to this free black, william ellison and he sent out a crew to build you what was perhaps the best cotton gin built. and his work force was made up of slaves. according to the 1830 united states census, in the states of louisiana, maryland, south carolina, and virginia, free

african-americans owned more than 10,000 slaves in 1830. in south carolina alone, there were 171,000 african-american slave owners that owned slaves in 1860. in the book, spent a number of chapters looking at the work life, family life, social life, food, clothing, shelter, religious life, medical life, the education or lack there of education of slaves in the american south. and time certainly doesn't permit us to cover all of that. let's just look very briefly at the work life of the slaves. most slaves work from dawn to dusk in backbreaking labor. myth or reality? that's a little bit of a harder one to answer. but, it's probably more myth