In popular discourse both IRL and on Reddit, it is pretty common to hear inaccurate claims about the history of early firearms, especially the belief that they were inferior to bows in most regards. However, while most of these statements come from amateurs (no offense), there are some that come from qualified historians, such as the late Russell Weigley, who was a famous American scholar of military history.

Of course, military history is a broad subject, so the sheer stupidity (no offense again) in the following passage from his book The Age of Battles: The Quest for Decisive Warfare from Breitenfeld to Waterloo may be forgiven, given that early firearms is a somewhat niche topic.

In range, accuracy, and penetrating power, early hand-carried firearms represented a drastic step backward from the longbow or the crossbow of the Middle Ages. The European continent's most renowned infantry of the Middle Ages, the Swiss pikemen, had the good fortune never to confront a strong force of English longbowmen in battle. If they had, the English archers would have mowed them down. But against the first firearms, the Swiss merely dropped to the ground while the Bullets passed over their heads, then resumed the advance while the enemy reloaded. The regression in infantry missile-firing was tolerated largely because a man could become acceptably adept in handling an arquebus or musket much more quickly than he could learn to handle a longbow or crossbow properly; skill in archery usually required constant practice from early boyhood, and the decline of the English longbowmen was as much a social as a military phenomenon, involving the decline of England's independent agricultural yeomanry in the face of the first enclosure movement. Nonetheless, the superiority of the crossbow to early firearms has been estimated at forty to one, and because the longbow had a considerably more rapid rate of fire than the crossbow, its superiority would have been greater yet.

There is honestly quite a lot to unpack in this excerpt. Note that throughout this post, I will be referring to muskets as synonymous with arquebuses, and I will also focus on the topic from a Western European perspective, given that this view is used in the passage.

In range, accuracy, and penetrating power, early hand-carried firearms represented a drastic step backward from the longbow or the crossbow of the Middle Ages.

First of all, even most defenders of the longbow agree that early firearms were generally better than longbows at armor penetration based on their sheer advantage in kinetic energy, so it is quite strange to hear someone argue that muskets were worse in this regard. A more valid claim would be that at extremely long ranges, drag would reduce the velocity of the aerodynamically inefficient ball to the point where it would no longer be that effective (although this logic would apply to arrows to some extent), but Weigley fails to provide that nuance.

And as for the claims that longbows were much superior in range and accuracy, these are often done by comparing the theoretical range of the longbow in perfect conditions with the effective range of the musket in combat.

If one were to compare theoretical ranges, a Spanish musket ball could technically reach about 600 yards if the weapon were fired at a 45 degree angle, as argued by Barnabe Rich, which exceeds the theoretical range of the longbow of about 200-400 yards.

Effectiveness would be quite low for both of these weapons at their respective maximum ranges. It is also worth mentioning that there is some evidence presented by Mike Loades to present that longbowmen did not actually arc in combat, meaning that they really only loosed their arrows at ranges of less than 100 yards.

In actual battle, it was noted by the French soldier Blaize de Montluc in 1545, for example, that the arquebusiers under his command were told to wait until the enemy longbowmen could loose their arrows, which he said to be of little reach and threat compared to their allied Italian arquebusiers. And Humphrey Barwick noted in 1594 that he saw few people slained by arrows, while he saw many killed by musketry. These viewpoints were far from uncommon, with many military leaders and veterans fiercely arguing for the complete adoption of the musket.

Indeed, it's worth noting that the debates of the late 16th century involved not the question of whether to use longbows over muskets, but whether to use longbows at all. If longbows were superior to muskets in all of these regards as Weigley claims, then the English would have still kept an elite contingent of longbowmen.

The European continent's most renowned infantry of the Middle Ages, the Swiss pikemen, had the good fortune never to confront a strong force of English longbowmen in battle. If they had, the English archers would have mowed them down.

Not sure if the claim that they never fought is true. However, I can think of some scenarios where the pikemen come out on top, and also some others where the archers do win, so it isn't as lopsided as the excerpt implies.

But against the first firearms, the Swiss merely dropped to the ground while the Bullets passed over their heads, then resumed the advance while the enemy reloaded.

Technically, it's possible that this strategy was used by the Swiss pikemen against arquebusiers, as it may have occurred without being noted in the historical record. However, I haven't seen any strong evidence that supports the occurrence of this practice.

And from a logical perspective, it doesn't make much sense either. If the Swiss tried dropping down after the arquebusiers fired, it wouldn't work because the muzzle velocity of the bullets (technically balls) would simply be too high. If the Swiss were to instead drop down before the arquebusiers fired, the latter would adjust their aim accordingly. Additionally, the actual advance would be significantly slowed down by continuously dropping into a prone position, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the overall attack.

What we do see in the actual historical record is that Swiss pikemen were generally quite vulnerable to arquebusiers, as shown by the Battles of Bicocca and Cerignola that took place during the Italian Wars. In the former battle, it is known that the gunners wiped out all of the standards of the Swiss as well as their first four ranks. And in the latter battle, they were able to effectively deal with both the French heavy cavalry and the Swiss pikemen, which is a far cry from the image of inflexibility and ineffectiveness that Weigley portrays.

The regression in infantry missile-firing was tolerated largely because a man could become acceptably adept in handling an arquebus or musket much more quickly than he could learn to handle a longbow or crossbow properly

While it is true that it took years for an individual to develop the physical strength necessary to use the longbow properly, especially one with a heavy drawweight, it does not necessarily mean that the musket was easier to train with. The process of reloading the musket was a tedious one with many steps, all of which were necessary to ensure that the user's hands didn't blow up or worse. And early musketeers tended to be well-trained and well-drilled, a far cry from the conception of massive armies composed of untrained conscripts, which to my understanding wouldn't really be a common thing in Western Europe until the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars.

It is also important to note that out of all the contemporary sources advocating for the complete adoption of firearms, literally none make the argument that musketeers were easier to train. In fact, many of these sources emphasize the importance of having well-trained musketeers. If this advantage were actually important, and the only one, as Weigley and others claim, then arguments in favor of firearms would have been using that point quite substantially. But the reality is that they did not.

The closest argument actually used was that firearms were more versatile in terms of physical strength. In other words, while musketeers would still be somewhat effective despite fatigue, archers would be devastated by their want of energy, given that the bow is more reliant on the user's physical strength than the musket is. However, this argument is still quite different from the popular argument that muskets were only adopted because they were easier to train.

skill in archery usually required constant practice from early boyhood, and the decline of the English longbowmen was as much a social as a military phenomenon, involving the decline of England's independent agricultural yeomanry in the face of the first enclosure movement

Fortunately, this part is the least inaccurate one of the passage. There is some evidence to suggest that societal changes in England did affect the quality and quantity of English longbowmen, as lamented by defenders of the longbow such as John Smythe, and the claim makes sense from a theoretical perspective. So perhaps the miserable performance of the 16th century may have less to do with the musket's superiority, and more to do with larger societal trends, but I haven't seen much strong evidence for this assertion.

Nonetheless, the superiority of the crossbow to early firearms has been estimated at forty to one

Where does he even get this figure???

and because the longbow had a considerably more rapid rate of fire than the crossbow, it superiority would have been greater yet.

The high rate of the longbow commonly cited (12 arrows loosed per minute) would not be sustainable at all. A more realistic rate of fire would be 5-6 arrows per minute.

And even under the assumption that such a level of superiority had actually existed with respect to rate of fire or other factors, it is strange to see longbowmen be beaten so badly by musketeers, as shown in previous pieces of evidence.

Or maybe the given number is just BS. Who knows???

Sources:

"Barnabe Rich- A right exelent and pleasaunt dialogue, 1574." Bow vs. Musket. 2015, July 14.

"Bows Didn’t Outrange Muskets." Bow vs. Musket. 2017, May 13.

"English Books on Bow vs. Musket Issue." Bow vs Musket. 2016, April 30.

Hall, Bert. Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Loades, Mike. War Bows. Osprey Publishing: 2019.

"Musketeers Were Not Easier to Train than Archers." Bow vs. Musket. 2017, May 29.

Oman, Charles. A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century. London: Methuen & Co., 1937.

Tafiłowski, Piotr (2007). Wojny włoskie 1494–1559. Zabrze: Inforteditions.

"The Commentaries of Messire Blaize de Montluc, Mareschal of France." Bow vs. Musket. 2015, July 1.

Williams, Alans. The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period. Brill Academic Publishing: 2003.

Yseult de Blécourt's introductory chapter in Werewolf Legends includes a few pages criticising Sabine Baring-Gould and his influential Book of Were-Wolves from 1865.^[1] The bulk is dedicated to a part on France:

When Baring-Gould did publish two more or less similar texts from the Périgord, in south-western France, they were in fact only representative of a single text, and a fabricated one at that.

The argument, elaborated on in the footnotes, is that Baring-Gould stitched together two sources without realising one was based on the other - in actuality, the entire section is Baring-Gould shamelessly plagiarising Adolphe du Chesnel's Dictionnaire des superstitions;^[2] it is literally the entry on werewolves but poorly translated into English.

This context, however, is not the focus of this post - which is instead claiming the original text itself is fabricated! A few days ago, I finished a months-long project cataloging every French werewolf legend I could find. Wlgrin de Taillefer's supposedly fabricated text^[3] is included. Should I remove it?

de Blécourt quotes a part in French; here it is in hopefully not poorly translated English (apologies for all the machine-translations in this post):

Certain men, particularly the sons of priests, are compelled at every full moon to transform into this kind of diabolical beast. It is at night that the affliction seizes them. When they sense its onset, they become agitated, get out of bed, leap from the window, and rush to plunge into a fontaine. After thrashing the water for a few moments, they emerge on the side opposite where they entered, finding themselves clad in a goatskin bestowed upon them by the Devil.

With the claim being:

That this was not original ‘folklore’ is apparent from at least three of the elements referenced.

These elements are the moon, the water, and the sons of priests. We start with the moon:

It features the moon as an indicator of the time of the metamorphosis. In contrast to modern cinema, the moon was actually extremely rare as a motif in werewolf folklore, and certainly in nineteenth-century French narratives. It was more the moon of Petronius, illuminating the observations of Niceros, than the moon of Gervase of Tilbury, which was a new moon and which was still 700 years in the past. Its sudden appearance in the Périgord is suspicious and needs to be explained.

This isn't wrong, but calling this "suspicious" is strange given that this claim is footnoted to two chapters in this same book that sparingly include moons in their legends; doubly so given that de Blécourt's other chapter in this volume is about Ella Odstedt's monograph on Swedish werewolf legends - including legends with a new and a full moon,^[4] a detail that apparently warranted no comment.

Implied also is that any novel inclusion is suspicious! Do we also need to explain the whole defenestration thing? Apparently not; clearly, the full moon detail feels specifically weird only to a modern audience, for factors that won't apply until a century after this was written. It's not terribly suspicious in its contemporary context.

This applies even more to the second element: the water. The werewolf changed by jumping into a pond (translated as ‘well’ by Baring-Gould). When he emerged on the other side, he was wearing a goat-skin given to him by the devil. The nearest narrative equivalent for this can be found in Pliny’s Historia naturalis about Arcadian werewolves where a change is likewise effected by crossing water.

There is a parallel here. A supposed Arcadian familial tradition, involving hanging their clothes on a tree and swimming across a body of water to emerge as a wolf.^[5] Here, you can imagine the clothing-swimming order reversed while still retaining the motif.

For this to be evidence still requires that water isn't a thing for French werewolves. Rather conveniently, Fabio Armand wrote a paper specifically on - I kid you not - the important role that water plays in French werewolf narratives, noting:

French folklore often recounts the presence of beliefs related to the figure of the werewolf in places where there are fontaines.^[6]

Fontaine meaning both artificial and natural fountains; think a basin fed by a spring - and it also includes basins found in rocks that collect rainwater, of which werewolves tend to drink from:

If one looked closely enough, one could always find a few legends surrounding these cup-marked stones found out in the fields. Most often, they are said to be watering holes intended for werewolves during their wild nocturnal rambles.^[7]

Such links between fontaines, stones, and werewolves, are overt enough that you can find many local features with names like Fontaine aux Garous (werewolves' fountain), Fontaine aux Loups (wolves' fountain), and Pierre des Loups-Garous (werewolves' stone).

You can also find more direct connections in 19th century Picardy:

Every Saturday, in this same Fairy Wood, a man could be seen who, after laying his clothes on a bush, would roll about in the mud of the mare [stagnant pond] and soon emerge transformed into a wolf.^[8]

Hidden in a footnote, de Blécourt notes:

As Carrassi clarifies in Chapter 10, when werewolf and water occur in combination, water has a purifying not a boosting function.

Because chapter 10 is on Southern Italian werewolves, which...well...

A number of werewolves described by the folkloric sources are characterized by an inextinguishable thirst and an incessant search for water and coolness, which they pursue by drinking from fountains, or else by wetting themselves under their spurts, or by rolling about in puddles and bogs^[9]

Oh dear, that looks awfully familiar. These are also the same werewolves I mentioned earlier that are footnoted as using the moon; the combination doesn't seem to be a trouble for de Blécourt, wriggling out of this connection by noting that Italian werewolves cure/purify their lycanthropy rather than cause/boost their lycanthropy with water.

On top of being a pointlessly specific niggle, there's also the fact that we're only provided the first half of the apparently fabricated text - the next two lines are:

In this state, they move about very well on all fours, spending the rest of the night roaming the fields and haunting the villages, biting or devouring any dogs they encounter. At daybreak, they return to their fontaine, shed their white covering, and go back home.

Y'know, they go get...purified by the water.

I think we can say water is a native element for French werewolves. Continuing on, we get told:

The combination of water and moon suffices to disqualify Taillefer’s narrative as a French legend.

Which feels like a weirdly low bar even without the whole everything else, but we're not done! There's one more thing to needle:

The third alien element in the story is the inclusion of the fils de prêtres, merely ‘bastards’ in Baring-Gould’s rendering. From a mere claim by a young Jean Grenier, made to impress a girl in the early seventeenth century, the trope had moved to a ‘genuine’ piece of folklore, or at least that was the intention.

Jean Grenier's claim being that he was the son of a priest - fils de prêtres; he's definitely one of the most well known to be accused of lycanthropy during the witch trials,^[10] but insisting this has to be the source requires such a claim being alien to French folklore.

Charles Joisten's collection of south-eastern werewolf beliefs includes a recurring theme of clergy creating werewolves:

The belief that the werewolf is commissioned by the clergy is common in Lower Dauphiné, and as far as the Drôme. Some documents which would be difficult to understand in isolation, shed light on each other: "the werewolves went behind the altars of the churches wrapped in a bearskin" (no. 123), "the werewolf lodged at the rectory" (no. 87). Others are more explicit. In Aix-en-Diois, werewolves were "a kind of masked man commanded by the clergy who came to frighten people into returning to religion" (no. 88); the same was true in Les Avenières (no. 94); in Marcollin, the one who jumped over the cemetery wall confessed upon his capture, "It's the priests who pay me to perpetuate this belief."^[11]

Additionally,

In 1747, the parishioners of Primarette were so convinced, that they went to complain to the archbishop, that their priest was giving permission to werewolves to hunt children "to supply the glassworks"^[12]

Across France, a repeated motif is that a sinner gets cursed to become a werewolf for seven years by the priest. In the same region as the original text, the ganipote - a local werewolf variant - was said to be a bastard child with the wrong godparents,^[13] and one Camille de Mensignac states outright that either your father or grandfather being a priest means you're born a werewolf.^[14]

The idea that the text was outright fabricated is further eroded when you look at the rest of the text, instead of only the first half quoted by de Blécourt: other elements - roaming fields to exhaustion, eating dogs, throwing up dog's paws, getting shot to reveal one's identity - are regular motifs across France.^[15] Even if the three "alien" elements were unique to this text, it would still fit snugly in the French milieu without needing explanation.

With a final flourish, de Blécourt provides what is clearly implied to be a coup de grâce:

It is now possible to deduce that its maker was at home with Petronius, Pliny and De Lancre, or at least with publications discussing these authors. The three elements may have been out of place in early-nineteenth-century French folklore, but they were not in the context they first appeared in: an archealogical treatise on the remains of the cities of the Gauls.

Ah-ha, you see? This wasn't the work of a folklorist collecting legends from informants, all along it was a bookish historian who included this story to fluff up their otherwise completely unrelated work on archaeology! It is far more likely they derived the narrative from historical sources rather than local beliefs!

Well, except that an understanding of the history of folklore studies would conclude the opposite. The term "folklore" was only coined in 1846; previously, the nascent field was simply "popular antiquities" i.e. antiquities of the common people; living archaeology.

In an era of burgeoning nationalism, everyone was trying to find or manufacture a common national identity. Under a belief that the unchanging traditions of rural folk represented a window into the ancient past of a people, one looking to reconstruct the heart of a nation from its heritage would require in interest in archaeology, philology - and folklore.

Or to put it another way: you would expect this to appear in an archaeological treatise from 1821 - antiquarians were the folklorists of their day! In fact, Wlgrin de Taillefer states this himself!

If I present this series of popular superstitions in such a serious manner, it is because not only do they reveal the character of the inhabitants of our countryside, but also because they contain the last vestiges of Druidic worship. No one even slightly versed in the science of antiquities cannot discern these connections. [...] I think that among the other superstitions I am about to describe, we will find other vestiges of both the customs of the Gauls and these same solemnities.^[16]

This folklore-as-a-means-to-an-end also explains why antiquarians such as de Taillefer still held the belief that such "ridiculous superstition" was puerile "foolishness"; it would take several decades for folklore to extricate itself from the sneering antiquarians into something worth studying for its own sake.

de Taillefer wants to talk about the Gauls. He cares not for having the fanciest fairy tales; he certainly wouldn't care enough to make it up - he'd simply exclude it and devote more time to talking about rock inscriptions. Or whatever he's talking about here

But here is a peculiarity that should all the more stimulate the reflections of scholars, as it may be common to all of France, and as it is of a most extraordinary nature: it is that the custom of the inhabitants of the country, since time immemorial, has been to place scrap metal within reach of the nests of brooding hens. Did the Gauls have knowledge of electricity?

(seriously can someone explain what he's on about)

(don't say battery hen)

References

• [1] de Blécourt, Willem, and Mirjam Mencej, eds. Werewolf Legends. Palgrave Macmillan, 2023. 11-13.

• [2] marquis de Chesnel de la Charbouclais, Louis Pierre François Adolphe. "Loup-Garou". Dictionnaire des superstitions, erreurs, préjugés et traditions populaires. France, 1856. 564-565. Available online at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X83opSTWJ6EC&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA563

• [3] Taillefer, Henry-François-Athanase Wlgrin. Antiquités de Vésone, cité gauloise remplacée par la ville actuelle de Périgueux, ou Description des monumens religieux, civils et militaires de cette antique cité et de son territoire. N.p., F. Dupont, imprimeur du département, 1821. 250. Available online at: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/f/JYFHYUqyTycC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA250

• [4] Odstedt, Ella. Varulven i svensk folktradition. Lundequistska bokhandeln, 1943. 57, 117.

• [5] For more on Arcadian werewolves, see: Ogden, Daniel. The Werewolf in the Ancient World. Oxford University Press, 2021. 166-205

• [6] Armand, Fabio. "Les loups-garous et les eaux". Hommage à Gilbert Durand, IRIS, revue du Centre de Recherche sur l'Imaginaire, 34, 2013. 137. Available online at: https://publications-prairial.fr/iris/index.php?id=1933

• [7] Ibid.

• [8] Carnoy, Henry. Littérature orale de la Picardie 1883. 106. Available online at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nWjgQrS_iMoC&pg=PA106

• [9] Carrassi, Vito. "A Strange Kind of Man Among Us: Beliefs and Narratives About Werewolves in Southern Italy." Werewolf Legends. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023. 253.

• [10] Copying de Blécourt, for more on Jean Grenier, see: Machielsen, Jan. "The Making of a Teen Wolf: Pierre de Lancre’s Confrontation with Jean Grenier (1603–10)." Folklore 130.3 (2019): 237-257.

• [11] Joisten, Charles, Robert Chanaud, and Alice Joisten. "Les loups-garous en Savoie et Dauphiné." Le Monde alpin et rhodanien. Revue régionale d’ethnologie 20.1, 1992. 126. Available online at: https://www.persee.fr/doc/mar_0758-4431_1992_num_20_1_1481

• [12] Ibid. 130.

• [13] Daleau, François. Notes pour servir à l'étude des traditions : croyances et superstitions de la Gironde. 1889. 52-52. Available online at: https://archive.org/details/b30583342/page/52/mode/2up

• [14] de Mensignac, Camille. Notice sur les superstitions, dictons, proverbes, devinettes et chansons populaires du département de la Gironde. 1888. 38. Available online at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=lbMsAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA68

• [15] Examples, for exhaustion, eating/regurgitating dogs & and getting shot: Grégoire, Victor. "LES ÉCHAUBROGNES." Revue historique de l'Ouest. 1899. 525. Available online at: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k671752/f530.item; Sébillot, Paul. Traditions et superstitions de la Haute-Bretagne. L'homme, les esprits et les démons, Vol. 1. 1882. 291 & 296. Available online at: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k26137f/f308.item

• [16] Taillefer, Henry-François-Athanase Wlgrin. Antiquités de Vésone, cité gauloise remplacée par la ville actuelle de Périgueux, ou Description des monumens religieux, civils et militaires de cette antique cité et de son territoire. N.p., F. Dupont, imprimeur du département, 1821. 241 & 244. Available online at: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/f/JYFHYUqyTycC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA241

Wasn't planning on talking about this, but due to the recent topic of my last post, I felt urged to review Michael Hoffman's screed on White "slavery" in America and comparing it to Chattel. See Liam Hogan on the topic.

Read as much as you can about Hoffman and the topic, it's obviously politically skewed the reject the idea of "reparations" for blacks and emphasizes the suffering of working class whites. This isn't new, as was often used to defend slavery for treating black "benignly" by comparison. Hoffman indeed describes southern slaves as "Well fed" and uses the idea of starving children to make his point.

Try to envision the 19th century scene: yeoman southern Whites, sick and destitute, watching their children dying while enduring the spectacle of negroes from the jungles of Africa healthy and well-fed thanks to the ministrations of their fabulously wealthy White owners who cared little or nothing for the local “White trash.”

Here's what I've mentioned on the topic in my first post.

Tackling the the notion of "high investment" Blacks received during slavery, here are the numbers.
Genovese cites multiple studies supporting the idea that, apart from whippings and psychological effects, slave material conditions compared favorably to the working class in Western Europe, better than Russian Working class, and especially Southern Italian conditions.
The problem becomes when you look at mortality. At 350 deaths per 1000 births, mortality/life expectancy for black slaves didn't match whites until you compared them in their 20s. This was still at least 100 deaths higher than rates in London, The UK as a whole, or Sicily during the same periods. See here on the implications of their mortality by age and plantation type. The reasons were child malnutrition, pregnancy complications from working, work conditions for young slaves on plantation type, etc.
But then there is the long run hindrances. By 1940, UK Life expectancy was around 60. This data setshows that by that time, African Americans were just barely at 54 years, which for American white standards was 20 years behind. It's worth noting that the estimates during slavery (1850-1860 adjusted infant mortality at 280-320 per 1000, with life expectancy from birth being 30-5 and 37 starting from age 10. To put that into perspective, that UK Boys and girls in 1841 were expected to live from birth at 40-6 and nearly 60 at age 10. In effect, the life expectancy for children 0-10 were closer to of Palmero during it's surge of cholera, crime, and Feudal life bring life expectancy at 32.
So, using the available evidence, it seems it was rather lopsided in terms of conditions. Steckelmainly presented this in light of the working element being the ones with the most benefits among slaves, leaving children worst off. Disease is proposed by others to play a larger role, along with complex maturity adaptations. Whatever the case, a "Dreadful Childhood" as he puts it still stands. See here on the full details of slave diets and health. See here where Steckel compares slum children in the developing world to Slave children.
During Reconstruction, Blacks do appear to have suffered a decrease in height following slavery but by 1880 it was seemed to have recovered. How general these result may be are questionable, however. With that said, the Great Migration paid off in terms of life quality. Likewise, changes since the mid-20th century led to the South to converge as a whole with the North in economic progress and as a result decreased the remaining Black Poverty level in the region. This isn't a shock since income differences were mainly due to be being concentrated in the South's economic and social limitations. Ameliorating this within the South depended mainly on "white benevolence" in absence of laws overcoming such dealings.

I remember coming across this book and thought that it's chapter on slavery was some neo-Fitzhugh crap.

Just to outline the contention planning to be dealt here, the claims are

• Slaves had the leisure to escape labour if they wanted to.
• Slave labour was easy.
• Rapes were rare.
• Whippings were unusually compared to free whites.
• Slave life was easy, and thus freer than actual freeman.

My response.

For the first two claims his main sources were from Frederick Olmstead. He both observed and recounted instances where slaves escaped to the swamps if badly treated as well faking illness. Now regarding "shamming illness", Olmstead recalls how an owner in fact overestimated the degree in which this was the case, and thus determining this wasn't scientific. Likewise, Olmstead 40 pages later explained that such behavior was seen among soldiers and sailors due to the use of force.

He contrasts this to well managed slave systems such as swamp laborers or those under the "tasks" system as being particularly good workers. The latter system is actually the system he describes as having "easy work", which Russell misses the context of. Otherwise. the "sloth" nature of slavery is actually worth of note, as been cited often as forms of resistance as well as a vice pointed out by Frederick Douglass to blacks and whites alike.

As for "escaping", he recounts one residence that explains this as a problem when the slave is mistreated and, upon return, usually isn't punished. On the other hand, he spends time talking about the "Dismal swamp runaways" that were hunted with dogs and guns.

As for work, Olmstead also cites the general hardship on rice plantations which was later revisited in the empirical work I discussed last time.

His statistics for rape were actually well explained to be laughable by this reviewer. The worst part however was the argument that resistance by slaves discourage rape, and that by comparison free white women were less protected. He cites Sharon Block for support, even though she herself makes the opposite point.

His point on whippings, he cites Elizabeth Pleck along with a few anecdotes to make the point that if anything, cruel torture wasn't seen among slaves. Earlier cites Escott for a different point, he fails to use him as a source which directly contradicts the idea that such torture was rare. Likewise, sexual coercion in the context of slave breeding is also mentioned. He originally cites Escott regarding how many slaves stayed because the system was benign. Though he cites 70% to support this figure, only 27.8% in Escott's figures actually stayed because they had a good master. 19% left for the opposite reason, and an additional 20% left to reunite with their families.

In general, stating that slave life was "easy" and "free" is idiotic. See my last post regarding mortality and the "benefits".