“... the New York Times correspondent tried very hard to maintain his detachment – and he succeeded. “Whipping, paddling, and other customs, peculiar to the palmy days of the institution, are practiced, and the negro finds, to his heart's sorrow, that his sore-headed master is loath to give him up. There is fault on both sides and equal exaggeration in the representation of his difficulties, by both master and servant.” (NYT, August 2nd, 1865)This sounds too stupid to have to say, but there is no moral equivalence between the person who is sad to no longer have slaves, thus keeps beating them, and the former slave who should be free - should have always been free, but now the law has caught up - but is still subject to slave treatment. That is a false equivalency. It goes beyond being stupid to being morally repugnant. It is neither honest nor fair.