Here is the controversial sentence: "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills, which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit."

Here is my proposed amended sentence: "Instruction includes how slaves developed skills, which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit, but only with permission from the master, and in almost every case, those skills were applied for the benefit of the Master, and not the slave." 

How's that?  We all agree, right?  Let's send it in.  Case closed.

Seriously, though, I would wonder, in what way would developing a skill benefit a slave?  If he became a blacksmith, did the master then allow him to own a pair of shoes?  I suppose he would not have to work dawn till dark picking cotton if he had a skill.  That's a benefit, right?  Or maybe, he wouldn't get whipped as often?  Only get whipped once a week instead of twice a week?  Or not get his pearly whites yanked out of his head so the master can have a nice set of false teeth?

---