work was very demanding in the rural south back then. and there was a lot of backbreaking labor that was required. i guess the myth part is it wasn't just limited to slaves. if you lived in the rural south, you did not live in terror -- tara, you lived in a small cabin, a small-framed building and you had backbreaking labor, as well. so, pretty much everyone in the rural south worked from dawn to dusk, monday through friday, and either all day saturday, or half a day saturday. whether you were black, whether you were white, whether you were a slave or whether you were free. rarely did anyone in the south work on sundays, slave or free. unless, with the possible exception during harvest time.

myth or reality -- most slaves were severely beaten to meet production goals or to ensure compliance. we've all seen the pictures. of slaves that have whip scars on their backs. myth or reality. are there my bad people in missouri today? are there any bad people in missouri today? unfortunately, there are everywhere, aren't they? and you know what? we've always had we probably always will have bad people. and we had bad people that owned slaves when slavery was legal. and that some slaves were physically abused is not in question. they were. know, though, how prevalent was that? was that the typical way an

average slave owner would treat his slaves. modern management teaches a variety of ways to motivate workers. one of the most successful ways to motivate is through rewards, and one of the least successful ways is through extreme punishment. slave owners, i think, were aware of those techniques back in the 1800's. i believe slave discipline and work production was maintained far more often by a system of rewards rather than through a system of punishments. there was no common manual that outlined the degree of rewards and punishment so it varied from slave owner to slave owner, although there were certainly economic, moral, and social constraints on the slave owner. one way to answer that very difficult question is to review

the slave narratives. overall you find that there are some severe whippings mentioned in the slave narratives. but they are very rare, they're rare indeed. i also looked at period reports, and one of the most interesting ones was by a new york city newspaper reporter named frederick law olmstead. he was anti-slavery but he was sent to the south and made several journeys to the south and would write back and his new york paper would print his recordings of what he found about slavey in the south. this is what he wrote, "men of sense have discovered that when they desire to get extraordinary exertions from their slaves, it is better to offer them rewards than to whip them, to encourage them, rather than to drive them." a very popular reward for slave owners, to their slaves was to

give them a plot of land. and let them use that land in whatever regard they wanted to. they could grow their own crops, they could sell them back to the slave owner. they could take the crops they raised, take it to town and sell it in town. one slave owner in mississippi told olmstead that his slaves had bought a lot of personal items and when he asked how they got the money, the slave owners said, well, they earned it. when asked how they earned it, the slave owner said, it's by their own work. i tell you, my slaves got more money than i have. and i actually found instances where slave owners would borrow cash from their slaves so they could go and buy seed for future plantings. probably the most popular reward was cash. usually cash was given for

short-term performance but i think some slave owners developed the forerunner to the modern corporate bonus plan by giving a cash bonus at the end of the year if they met various production goals. and some of these cash bonuses paid to slaves were quite substantial. the most reviled person on the farm or plantation in the south? who is that bad, bad person? the overseer, wasn't it? ooh. just the name, it makes you cringe. there are a lot of myths about the overseer. first, they weren't very common. they ever not very common. -- they were not very common. only 1% of slave owners had oversears. now, that's a little misleading because if you rather earlier i said slave owners had fewer

than 20 slaves and you probably don't need an overseer in that case. but indeed the percentage of slave owners that had overseers is very, very small. another myth about overseers is, they were all white. just the opposite is true. in reality, most of the overseers were black. the larger the farm, the larger the plantation, the higher the percent of white overseers, the lower the -- the smaller the farm, the lower the percentage of white overseers, but even on the large plantations that had 100 plus slaves, the percent of white overseers was only about 30%. so that meant 730% were black. -- 730% were black. the war -- 730 percent were black.

i like to ask abraham lincoln that question. he would seem to be a pretty good source to ask. this is what lincoln said." my paramount objective in this struggle is to save the union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. if i could save the union without freeing any slave, i would do it, and if i could save it by freeing all the slaves, i would do it. if i could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, why also do that. what i do about slavery and the colored race, i do because i believe it helps to save the union. and what i forebear, i forebear because i do not believe it would help save the union." abraham lincoln, august, 1862. now, as union soldiers advanced

in the south, did all the slaves flee their slave owners and go to the union troops? is that a myth or is that a reality? that indeed is a myth. of the approximately four million slaves, only about a half million left, 87.5% remained loyal to their slave owners. and that percentage doesn't take into account those slaves that initially left and were not very well treated by advancing federal soldiers and returned back home. now, blacks only served in the union army, myth or reality? that's a myth. the reality is that blacks served in both armies, that of the union and that of the confederate army. about 186 thors blacks --

186,000 blacks served in the union army. and i tell of accounts of extreme valor performed by these black union soldiers. what about on the confederate side? we do not have good data to give you a firm number. you see estimates as low as 10,000 in the confederate army of blacks and as high as 930,000. i don't know what the correct number is. probably somewhere between those two. even if blacks served in the confederate army, they only served in nonmilitary roles. myth or reality? another myth. i learned early on, by researching the official records of the rebellion, those volumes, those 128 volumes published by the united states government following the war that it contains the official records of the war. battle reports. you don't have to do a whole lot of research when you get in those and you'll find battle

reports where a federal officer will report that his troops were fired on by black confederates. it's in the official records. so, it's surprising to me when i see some historians that say, oh, no, they were all in nonmilitary roles. look at the official records. another way to answer that question is to ask frederick douglass. the noted abolitionist, frederick douglass, obviously, not a friend to the confederacy. this is what frederick douglass said and he said it in 1861 early on in the war, not at the end of the war," there are at the present moment many colored men in the confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers having muskets on their shoulders and bullets in their pockets ready to shoot down loyal troops and do all

that soldiers may do to destroy the federal government." frederick douglass, 1861. what i've given you this evening is really just a glimpse of slavery. i tried to tell the story of american slavery in my book as best i could. we will never know everything about american slavery, and that's why i say we just have a glimpse, that's the best we can do today to look at this peculiar institution of american slavery. there were horrors in american slavery. and there was that inconceivable idea that we have today of one person owning another person. less known, however, are that some slaves truly did experience various levels and joy and happiness while in bondage. although politically incorrect

to even utter today, i found joy and happiness among some of the slaves in doing the research. yet, on the other side, they were still slaves. they were property owned by another person. they lacked freedom. let me read to you one great brief comment from the book that relates to that idea of freedom. perhaps one slave, after he escaped to freedom said it the best to describe what freedom from slavery really meant. when questioned by a judge, this exchange occurred. slave. oh, no, i had a good life, there. judge -- were you mistreated? slave -- no, oh, massa and me was the greatest friends, fished and huvented together. hunted together. judge -- did you have good food and housing?

slave -- sure enough, ham and taters, my little cabin had roses over the door. judge -- i don't understand. why did you run away? slave -- well, your honor, the situation is still open down there if you'd like to apply for it. [applause] there is no way to discount the lack of freedom, but if one looks just at the slave life in america, there are two extremes. on the one hand, there's the often recounted tale of misery and suffering, and on the other hand, there's the less-told account of a kindler, gentler degree of life of a slave. where is the truth? that's what i tried to find out

in my book, "myths & realities of american slavery." thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> john, we really appreciated that talk. that was a very poignant ending that you had to it. that, nobody loves freedom more than americans and the fact that we could share that with african-americans is great. we just went over to iraq and spent millions of dollars to free people we never even knew that may have even been part of the 9-11 problem. we love to spread freedom. that was an excellent ending to that. if anybody has any questions that they would like to ask john about his book, he's -- he

had that he would be glad to entertain any questions. if you would wait until the folks from c-span get over to where you are, russ at this table right here, ma'am. if you wait until they get over there with their microphone and then ask the question. ok, russ manzini? >> i'm just curious if your book contained any information on the modern findings, the archeology of the slave quarters in new york and new england, and some of the atrocities that occurred there. >> i didn't really concentrate that much on that area of the country. i did look at archeological excavations in the south, in an effort to try to determine the food and what the slaves ate

and what possessions they had. there's been a lot of archeological work done there and i'll recount that. i made mention of some of the archeological work done, for instance, in new york city but did not cover it to any great degree. any other questions? yes, sir. we'll wait until the microphone gets to you. >> mr. perry, in your research, did you find any differences of service of the black americans in the union versus confederate army, two parts? also, which army first used them? did you find any evidence of that? >> that's a good question. there was service, obviously on both sides, both the union and the confederate. i think it highly more likely

that the initial service was on the confederate side because you had many of the slaves that went off with their slave owner to war. i don't personally think it was too long before they took up arms. that might not have been their original attempt but it wasn't long before they took up arms right alongside their slave owner. i think there's excellent examples of valor on both sides, both the union side and confederate side by black soldiers. >> and the second part, then, were there -- how were the black soldiers treated? were the confederates versus the union blacks able to reach officer status? any differences there? >> yeah, there are a number of differences. if you look at the military service of blacks in union

versus confederate, typically, in the confederate army, black soldiers served in integrated units and in the northern army, they served for the most part in segregated units. in the union army, they were -- the black soldiers were commanded only by white officers. on the southern side, i think i found some instances of noncommissioned black officers. there was another big issue on pay. now, on the confederate side, pay was scanty at best for anybody, and -- but when black confederate soldiers were paid, they were paid at the same wage as white confederate soldiers. however, on the union side, it was quite a controversy and really wasn't resolved right until the end of the war because black soldiers were paid a lesser pay schedule than were white union soldiers. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. yes, ma'am.

>> the concerning -- concerning the slave narratives, that was done in the 1930 era. the slaves that they would have interviewed would have been very, very small. at that time. so, i wonder how much real knowledge they had of being a slave, and how much after all those years is unbiased, so to speak. in 1930. and i question the people that took down -- what was their motive truly at that time from where they came from, and what was their real purpose in taking down the narratives? were they unbiased in what they reported? did they report everything that they acquired or only part of it?

>> ok. >> how much do you know about the -- >> many of the slaves were quite old so that they might have been a little older than what you think of asust being children. that is one of the criticisms of the slave narratives, is that they experience less of the harsher life than an older slave would have experienced. however, and then your question about the motives of the writers in the slave narratives -- they were people that were sent out to do a job and all of us have biased and it's hard to completely eliminate any and all bias, but i would encourage you to read the slave narratives from the standpoint -- much of it is word by word dictation. it's not really a writer writing, it's really a recorder recording exactly what was said, even in the same dialect that was spoken to them.

so, it's almost like you had a tape recorder, although they didn't have them, they were just transscribing what was said. i would encourage you to read the slave narratives and you will see that the feelings and expressions that are there are just incredible. are they perfect? obviously not. they're not perfect. there were some black people that conducted the slave narratives. they weren't all white interviewers that went out and did the slave narratives. so, are they perfect? no. but they are, to me, an excellent source of information about the life of slaves in america. wait until the microphone. >> i'm relatively -- john, relatively speaking, was there a higher or lower percentage of blacks serving in the

confederate navy as opposed to the confederate army? >> i think -- i can't really give you a quantifiable answer on that. i don't know. my best guess is probably higher on the navy side. i found numerous instances of confederates serving in the confederate navy. they also obviously served in the union navy. but that's a guess, dr. hardy, i'm not sure. any other questions? >> john, i did have one question behind you. would it be ok if i use this microphone? when you were speaking of the dage rate during the m terrible thought it was more than 20%, but it was also comparable to the european immigrants, does anybody have any figures on what the death rate among

african-americans was during reconstruction? because i've heard that it was as high as 25% when they were turned out with no way to provide for themselves. >> the 20% death rate on the middle passage was early on. again, it dropped down to about the 4% level and that's what the comparison was with the european immigration. my book ended in 1865, so i did not really study the reconstruction period. that's the next book. [applause] invite me back for that one. i can't really give you an intent answer on that. -- intelligent answer on that. >> you mentioned that 6% of the slaves came to the united states and the largest

percentage went to brazil. can you break that down just a little bit, like, what other countries were they going to other than the united states and brazil? >> i concentrated on american slavey, slavery related to the united states, but a one word answer to your question is sugar. wherever there was sugar plantations that is where the slaves were sent. so, haiti, cuba, central america, mexico, brazil. sugar was the great driving force. that was the need that they had for the labor, was sugar. so, i really don't have the data with me to tell you the exact percentage. but the sugar plantations were in dire need of a labor force and that's what the african slaves provided outside the united states. of course, it was cotton in the

united states. >> john, you mention in your book that the majority of the free african-americans lived in the south. in the north, were they widely accepted and were they invited to come live and work amongst them, or how were they treated in the north? do you know that? >> i think free african-americans in both north and south had a tough life prior to the war between the states. there was a lot of racial prejudice, both north and south. what you find with the free african-americans, regardless of north or south is, they live predominantly in urban areas. they were -- became very skilled craftsmen and learned a lot of different trades. for instance, the barber business was almost entirely

made up of african-americans prior to the war between the states. so, life was hard. if you were an african-american -- free african-american, whether you were in the north or in the south. >> in your research, did you find a higher incidence of brutality for a lack of a better term? among slave populations per plantation that were larger versus smaller? >> no, i really did not. but common sense tells me the answer to that question is probably yes. the slaves that lived with a slave owner that owned a handful of slaves or one or two slaves, what i found, they were treated as much like family as

anybody else. and so, common sense tells me the answer to that question is probably, they were treated better and there was a lack of mistreatment in the smaller slave holding situations. >> john, forgive me if you've been asked this. in your studies, have you found the percentages of black slave owners versus white slave owners? >> i can't really quote to you the percentage. that's a real good question. the question was, what is the percentage of white slave ownership, which we defined as about 26% of households versus free blacks owning slaves. again, my suspicion is, it's

probably less but i really don't know that for sure. >> mr. perry, you indicated, part of your research, a very limited to the archaeological digs, etc., in new york. did you have anything in your book on the procedures, the conditions for emancipation that had taken place in the northern states prior to the war? i >> i talk about that. after the revolutionary war, we began to see a movement, particularly up north, to free the slaves. and so i outline pretty much state by state the activities that occurred up north as far as freeing the slaves that were held up there. well, it was an intellectual thought, i think, that occurred

up north, and there was lesser need from a labor standpoint. after the revolutionary war, you begin to get a flood of european immigrants into the united states. in the south, we have the development of the cotton gin, and so we have this huge need for manpower, and the slaves fulfilled that particular need. while up north, there was the spirit of liberty that seemed to occur, but also from an economic sense, there was less need of slaves because they were being flooded by european immigrants coming in. >> it varied by state. he asked about how -- about how it occurred up north. it varied by state. there were various approaches done by different states, so it depended on each northern state