270), to prove his hypothesis. In addition, Phillips uses other plantation owner guidelines such as how to take special care of slave children and pregnant women and how slaves received more than sufficient food, clothing and shelter. All of this material goes to support Phillips" hypothesis and he asserts that, "The theory of rigid coercion and complete exploitation was as strange to the bulk of the planters as the doctrine and practice of moderation was to those who viewed the regime from afar with the mind's eye" (Phillips p.293).
All of the aforementioned evidence supports Phillips" theory that slavery wasn't a cruel institution. Phillips only concedes that some punishment of slaves may have been "barbarous," but these incidents were isolated and the exception. On the whole slavery was humane. The problem with Phillips begins with the fact that his use of primary sources is unbelievably selective. When W.E.B Dubois read this piece he claimed, "Where is the black voice." How can one make an assertion about slavery without simply interviewing one ex-slave? Phillips went into researching this subject with an agenda and as a result his evidence is more than just a little bit skewed. Phillips nonetheless created an invaluable piece of work that would pave the way for future historians.
Kenneth Stampp's book, The Peculiar Institution, serves as almost a direct response to the claims made earlier by Phillips. In the chapters of his book, Stampp one by one refutes the claims made by Phillips and uses both evidence and interpretations to show that Phillips claims are unfounded. Stampp tries to refute such Phillip claims such as the reason there was so little slave resistance was because the slaves did not mind their fate. Stampp discounts this claim by saying that there was resistance among slaves but that it did not all happen in the form of violence. In addition, runaway slaves faced a daunting task of getting to the North where life on the outside wouldn't be any better than life on the inside.