Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Bill O’Reilly defends his slavery statements: Slaves had “meat, bread, and other staples”

He still doesn’t get that slavery is the problem.

There seems to be no limit to how far Bill O’Reilly will go to put a positive spin on slavery.

On Tuesday, O’Reilly responded to Michelle Obama’s powerful convention speech poignantly conveying the progress her historical legacy demonstrate as the first black first lady “living in a house built by slaves” by saying that slaves “were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government.”

After a considerable amount of blowback, O’Reilly decided he needed to go even further on Wednesday, and clarify exactly how well-fed the slaves were.

“As any honest historian knows, in order to keep slaves and free laborers strong, the Washington administration provided meat, bread, and others staples, also decent lodging on the grounds of the new presidential building,” O’Reilly said. “That is a fact.”

And yet there are number of other facts O’Reilly failed to mention.

Slavery put an entire population in bondage on the grounds that they were not considered full human beings. That did not change for the slaves who were contracted to build the White House. And the unverifiable diet of the slaves who labored to erect America’s presidential palace does not rectify the fact that black people should not have been slaves in the first place.

The fact that slave owners were paid for their slaves’ labor while the slaves’ names were lost to history says everything about how the institution of slavery — and the price African Americans have had to pay — is remembered by far too many Americans today.

O’Reilly’s reluctance to view slavery, or the tokens we carry through history that were created as a benefit of slavery, as horrific or difficult just how far we still have to go to reckon with the history of slavery honestly.

See More:

More in Politics

The Logoff
Trump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictionsTrump’s DOJ wants to undo January 6 convictions
The Logoff

How the Trump administration is still trying to rewrite January 6 history.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Donald Trump messed with the wrong popeDonald Trump messed with the wrong pope
Politics

Trump fought with Pope Francis before. He’s finding Pope Leo XIV to be a tougher foil.

By Christian Paz
Podcasts
A cautionary tale about tax cutsA cautionary tale about tax cuts
Podcast
Podcasts

California cut property taxes in the 1970s. It didn’t go so well.

By Miles Bryan and Noel King
Podcasts
Obama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwupsObama’s top Iran negotiator on Trump’s screwups
Podcast
Podcasts

Wendy Sherman helped Obama reach a deal with Iran. Here’s what she thinks Trump is doing wrong.

By Kelli Wessinger and Noel King
Politics
The Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything elseThe Supreme Court could legalize moonshine, and ruin everything else
Politics

McNutt v. DOJ could allow the justices to seize tremendous power over the US economy.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
The new Hormuz blockade, briefly explainedThe new Hormuz blockade, briefly explained
The Logoff

Trump tries Iran’s playbook.

By Cameron Peters