How embarrassing...

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

Self employment and tax dodging . . . otherwise, no.

But DUH - you are entitled to a benefit for the duration of your life after contributing to Social Security, whilst slaves were not paid during or after working life and had no guarantees of a decent living condition, ample nourishment, healthcare or even the right to keep their families intact.

Stupid childish nonsense comparison.

Please extract your head from your colon and reread what was said about preserving the status quo.

And effort to preserve the status quo is a valid comparison.

 

[BlueGin]

It's more a civil war thing . You know, how they betrayed America and tried to destroy it .

They tried to preserve the status quo.

Kind like you morons want to preserve social security.

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

You do realize of course that the north and south viewed slaves in the same way right?

They don't.

They have to fit history to the narrative.

Must be why they keep changing their stories.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Notice how I have posted fact after fact with documented sources while BoSoxFail has posted nothing but uninformed opinion?

You're just very, very dim.

Did Virginia Law Prevent Thomas Jefferson From Freeing His Slaves?

By Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D.


Nearly two centuries after his death, Thomas Jefferson continues to be the subject of competing claims about his public policy and his private beliefs. Over time, public discussion of Jefferson waxes and wanes, but, of late, has heightened due to the publication of evangelical writer David Barton’s new book, “The Jefferson Lies,” a New York Times best seller.

Serious historians have dismissed Barton’s book in various reviews, but Barton remains a favorite of evangelicals and social conservatives, recently appearing on numerous radio and television broadcasts. Perhaps his most noteworthy appearance was on very non-evangelical Jon Stewart’s show, where Stewart failed to question any of Barton’s claims about Jefferson.

Perhaps Stewart’s challenge was absent because he didn’t know where to start. There are many suspicious claims in Barton’s book. Today, I will take just one. In “The Jefferson Lies,” David Barton aims to defend Jefferson from charges of racial prejudice. To do so, he must address and explain the fact that Jefferson owned many slaves and did not emancipate them. In “The Jefferson Lies,” Barton asks:

If Jefferson was indeed so antislavery, then why didn’t he release his own slaves? After all, George Washington allowed for the freeing of his slaves on his death in 1799, so why didn’t Jefferson at least do the same at his death in 1826? The answer is Virginia law. In 1799, Virginia allowed owners to emancipate their slaves on their death; in 1826, state laws had been changed to prohibit that practice.

Barton seriously misrepresents or misunderstands (or both) the legal environment related to slavery during Jefferson’s life. In his book, Barton cites Virginia’s 1782 law on manumission, which allowed slaves to be emancipated. He does not, however, quote it completely. Barton omits the section that indicates slaves could be freed by an owner with appropriate deed. In fact, many such slaves were freed by other owners, including fellow Virginian, Robert Carter, who freed all of his 452 slaves over the course of his lifetime, beginning with the filing of his “Deed of Gift” in 1791.

Here is the section of Virginia law quoted by Barton: “[T]hose persons who are disposed to emancipate their slaves may be empowered so to do, and ... it shall hereafter be lawful for any person, by his or her last will and testament ... to emancipate and set free, his or her slaves.”

Now, here is the entire first section of the 1782 law on manumission:

[T]hose persons who are disposed to emancipate their slaves may be empowered so to do, and the same hath been judged expedient under certain restrictions: Be it therefore enacted, That it shall hereafter be lawful for any person, by his or her last will and testament, or by any other instrument in writing, under his or her hand and seal, attested and proved in the county court by two witnesses, or acknowledged by the party in the court of the county where he or she resides to emancipate and set free, his or her slaves, or any of them, who shall thereupon be entirely and fully discharged from the performance of any contract entered into during servitude, and enjoy as full freedom as if they had been particularly named and freed by this act.

Note the section above in bold print. This is the portion of the 1782 law Barton omits from the relevant section. This section allowed slave owners to release their slaves by a deed. Emancipated slaves needed a document which was recorded according to the law as proof of their status. This law allowed slave owners when they were alive to free their slaves, provided slaves were of sound body and older than 18 if a female and older than 21 if a male, but not above the age of 45. Thus, Jefferson could have freed many of his slaves within the law while he was alive. In addition to “The Jefferson Lies,” Barton, in a recent radio program, emphatically stated that after 1782 slaves could only be freed at the time of a slaveholder’s death. Not only was Jefferson legally permitted to free his slaves, he actually freed two slaves in the 1790s, Robert (1794) and James (1796) Hemings.

In “The Jefferson Lies,” Barton then cites an 1806 Virginia law, and says,

...the law required that a freed slave promptly depart the state or else reenter slavery, thus making it almost impossible for an emancipated slave to remain near his or her spouse, children, or family members who had not been freed. Many, therefore preferred to remain in slavery with their families rather than become free and be separated from them.

In “The Jefferson Lies,” Barton is correct that the 1806 law presented a hardship to slaves who might want to be emancipated and had a willing master as they would have to make a choice of remaining near their families and risk being sold into slavery again if they remained in the state longer than a year. While Barton is accurate in his book about the language of the 1806 statute on slavery, in a recent radio interview, he characterized the 1806 law as absolutely prohibiting the freeing of slaves. While the 1806 law stated that one could be re-captured by state authorities and sold back into slavery, John Henderson Russell in “The Free Negro in Virginia, 1619-1865” (published in 1913) asserts that the law was rarely enforced as he could find very few legal documents indicating that a freed slave had been captured and re-sold into slavery.

There is an additional change in the legal environment of slavery in Virginia that Barton does not cite in his discussion of Jefferson. In 1816 Virginia legislators “had bowed to economic, social and political realities and had allowed one ‘escape hatch’ from the trap of emancipation,” writes Philip Schwarz. “That ‘escape hatch’ was that ‘freed people could petition local courts to exempt them from exile on the grounds of ‘their extraordinary merit’ and ‘good character.’” It seems entirely likely that a freed slave coming with a letter of recommendation from a former president and a favorite son of Virginia would have obtained an exemption from the re-capture provision. Jefferson did free five slaves on his death in 1826, but he transferred the ownership of about 260 to his heirs at that time. According to Schwarz, Jefferson “included in his will a request that the legislature of Virginia grant permission for his former slaves to remain in Virginia.” If Jefferson could make that request for five slaves, it seems reasonable that he could have made that request for others.

Regarding Jefferson and the legal environment of slaves and their possible emancipation, Barton misrepresents both the 1782 and the 1806 laws regarding slavery. More significantly, what a tremendous act in support of human equality it would have been had Jefferson freed those of his slaves of the right age while he was President of the United States. He could have done so, but chose not to. One could argue that Jefferson was constrained by cultural conditions or by his own economic needs to have slaves, but he cannot be called a champion for the unfettered emancipation of slaves.

The above article is adapted from ‘Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President‘ by Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter. Click the link for more information about the book, or go to www.gettingjeffersonright.com.

Now fuck off; I'm bored of your stupidity and/or lies.

 

[P@triot]

Barton omits the section that indicates slaves could be freed by an owner with appropriate deed.

You just proved I was right. With "appropriate deed" means the money required by law to set them free, you dimwit.

Now fuck off; I'm bored of your stupidity and/or lies.

Of course you're "bored". You're getting educated and you high school dropout progressives are "bored" by education.

 

[Clementine]

Notice how I have posted fact after fact with documented sources while BoSoxFail has posted nothing but uninformed opinion?

Thanks to corrupt public officials pushing certain narratives and a media carrying their water, some have come to believe that opinions are actually facts. They know nothing of history, only the redacted version spoon fed to them. No point in arguing because they only know how to regurgitate talking points and call names.

They also haven't figured out that none of this has been an issue for decades. Only now that they desperately are trying to bring down Trump have certain things angered people. No one called Clinton and Gore racist for using the Confederate flag in their campaign. Funny how the agitators managed to instill anger where there was none. And the dupes don't catch on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

This was discussing preserving the status quo.

Just like the left gets so fired up about efforts to end social security.

The generals probably didn't have political positions. They did as they were told.

But that makes them traitors.

Asswipes like Seawytch can't see past the last Saul Alinsky quote.

What is Social Security? Social Security is another program that makes people dependent on the federal government, so of course they get freaked out when people talk about ending it.

It's not that I'm against SS in general or what it does, I'm against the feds running it. If we want (or need) a public retirement plan, let the states handle it and make it optional instead of mandatory. This way if people want to end it, they can do so more easily than trying to free it from the clutches of the federal government.

The liberals want as much government dependency as they can create. The more dependency, the less liberty.

 

[BoSoxGal]

Barton omits the section that indicates slaves could be freed by an owner with appropriate deed.

You just proved I was right. With "appropriate deed" means the money required by law to set them free, you dimwit.

Now fuck off; I'm bored of your stupidity and/or lies.

Of course you're "bored". You're getting educated and you high school dropout progressives are "bored" by education.

He had the means at one time and DIDN'T DO IT. You are just holding onto your inaccurate information just like you hold onto your horrendous mistake on November 8th.

I really can't take this much dumb, enjoy life on ignore with the other idiots.

 

[Coyote]

It's more a civil war thing . You know, how they betrayed America and tried to destroy it .

They tried to preserve the status quo.

Kind like you morons want to preserve social security.

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

You do realize of course that the north and south viewed slaves in the same way right?

It is irrelevant and not totally accurate. Nice try though.

Civil war is over. All those monuments were erected long after the war...many when Jim Crowe was legislated. Most nations don't erect monuments for losers.

 

[Clementine]

 

[Coyote]

Liberals must always have a cause to CHAMPION...........It makes them feel morally superior............to safe something even when nobody asked them to save a dang thing....................If it wasn't statues it would be something else...................because they are emotional critters...............

Their rantings only divide a nation and CAUSE MORE RACIAL TENSION..................a tactic that is usually preserved when elections are close by.............Stir up racial hatred for votes................

Face it...............they suck.

What's wrong with opposing racism and bigotry? Seems like a worthy cause to CHAMPION....as opposed to supporting white supremacy

 

[Coyote]

How about some statues of Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler to round it out then?

 

[Coyote]

They tried to preserve the status quo.

Kind like you morons want to preserve social security.

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

I can't believe you are seriously equating slavery and taxation.

Let me know when your family goes on the auction block, your wife is sold down river, you're kids are sold to the highest bidder, your sister is forced to "mate" with a suitable "buck" (no this isn't family attack - I'm speaking generically). Not to mention being owned by another human being, like a dog. Someone who can do what ever he wants with you.

 

[Coyote]

You guys really get stuck on Byrd, but you know - he actually regretted his earlier association with the KKK and some of the stances he took. He spent a lot of his later life making up for it.

Just something to think about.

Byrd is forgiven for his history of racism, but Jeff Sessions had defend himself against the ACCUSATION.
SMH

So did Byrd. Does Sessions deserve a free pass because he's one of yours?

 

[Coyote]

You guys really get stuck on Byrd, but you know - he actually regretted his earlier association with the KKK and some of the stances he took. He spent a lot of his later life making up for it.

Just something to think about.

Yes, but it's the leftists who are always pointing fingers at the right trying to make race and racism an issue even if race is not even the subject.

The current events are a perfect example of this. Some of our uninformed voters here actually believe that Trump is siding with Nazis because he made a blanket statement about all involved in VA instead of explicitly saying Nazis or white supremacists. What makes them think like this? The media and Democrat politicians.

Besides the hypocrisy of the left constantly bringing up the KKK and their relationship to Republicans, they also are fighting hard to keep funding Planned Parenthood which was started to abort black babies to keep the black population down. They are fighting for the continuation of killing black babies and attacking harmless statutes instead.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy when it's so clear and evident.

I totally agree. Yet, when that supposed "pointing out" utterly excludes much of the man's legislative career...well...shouldn't that be pointed out? You guys trot out Byrd like a worn out record every time.

There are plenty of unrepentent racists available for exposure.

 

[Coyote]

Without racial division the Democratic party would lose half their base THAT'S why the Confederate flag and statues are under attack.

Racial division was why those statues were erected in the first place.

 

[Coyote]

Are you trolling or are you really this ignorant of history?

From PBS sweetie...

In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.

The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.

Your ignorance is truly astounding. And not for nothing - but I already know how you plan to attempt to back track to weasel out of your ignorance on full display. Just so you know, that tactic is going to end badly for you. I'm educated - you're not. Quite before this gets even worse for you.

Grant, Reconstruction and the KKK | American Experience | PBS

Speaking of ASTOUNDING ignorance - why do you constantly conflate PARTY with IDEOLOGY? The southern democrats were CONSERVATIVE. Party is irrelevent.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you trolling or are you really this ignorant of history?

From PBS sweetie...

In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.

The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.

Your ignorance is truly astounding. And not for nothing - but I already know how you plan to attempt to back track to weasel out of your ignorance on full display. Just so you know, that tactic is going to end badly for you. I'm educated - you're not. Quite before this gets even worse for you.

Grant, Reconstruction and the KKK | American Experience | PBS

Speaking of ASTOUNDING ignorance - why do you constantly conflate PARTY with IDEOLOGY? The southern democrats were CONSERVATIVE. Party is irrelevent.

Ironically these same people never hesitate to label Republicans as RINO's, or evil moderates, or even liberals,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You guys really get stuck on Byrd, but you know - he actually regretted his earlier association with the KKK and some of the stances he took. He spent a lot of his later life making up for it.

Just something to think about.

Yes, but it's the leftists who are always pointing fingers at the right trying to make race and racism an issue even if race is not even the subject.

The current events are a perfect example of this. Some of our uninformed voters here actually believe that Trump is siding with Nazis because he made a blanket statement about all involved in VA instead of explicitly saying Nazis or white supremacists. What makes them think like this? The media and Democrat politicians.

Besides the hypocrisy of the left constantly bringing up the KKK and their relationship to Republicans, they also are fighting hard to keep funding Planned Parenthood which was started to abort black babies to keep the black population down. They are fighting for the continuation of killing black babies and attacking harmless statutes instead.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out hypocrisy when it's so clear and evident.

I totally agree. Yet, when that supposed "pointing out" utterly excludes much of the man's legislative career...well...shouldn't that be pointed out? You guys trot out Byrd like a worn out record every time.

There are plenty of unrepentent racists available for exposure.

Yes there are, but how many times do the Republicans bring up Byrd unless a racial accusation was made about Republicans first?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not sure social security is comparable to slavery.

I'm certain it's not. No ambiguity.

Since you don't think about things, I understand why you are so foolishly certain.

Logically certain. Equating Social Security to slavery is unhinged, incoherent and utterly ridiculous.

With the exception of not working, do you have a choice whether the government takes your money for SS or not?

I can't believe you are seriously equating slavery and taxation.

Let me know when your family goes on the auction block, your wife is sold down river, you're kids are sold to the highest bidder, your sister is forced to "mate" with a suitable "buck" (no this isn't family attack - I'm speaking generically). Not to mention being owned by another human being, like a dog. Someone who can do what ever he wants with you.

So when I work and forced to give the money I work for to support other people, I'm not being owned?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Liberals must always have a cause to CHAMPION...........It makes them feel morally superior............to safe something even when nobody asked them to save a dang thing....................If it wasn't statues it would be something else...................because they are emotional critters...............

Their rantings only divide a nation and CAUSE MORE RACIAL TENSION..................a tactic that is usually preserved when elections are close by.............Stir up racial hatred for votes................

Face it...............they suck.

What's wrong with opposing racism and bigotry? Seems like a worthy cause to CHAMPION....as opposed to supporting white supremacy

So who is supporting white supremacy?