Racial Review: An Anniversary

[PoliticalChic]

As both the media and the public schools are wholly owned subsidiaries of Liberalism, Inc., the Left is able to portray their political enemies in the most fallacious and absurd manner....and get away with it.

Today, December 6th is a significant date in American history.....so let's review.

1. The first Africans brought in captivity to colonial Virginia in 1619 became indentured servants, like the white indentured servants who were common at that time. Both were released as free people after a set number of years. Maldwyn Allen Jones, “American Immigration,” p. 13, 32
2. 2. How and when this changed to perpetual slavery for blacks is unclear, but by the 1640’s, Africans brought to Virginia no longer had indenture contracts. Yet as late as 1651, some Negroes whose period of indenture expired were still being assigned land for themselves, as were the white indentured servants. Franklin, “From Slavery to Freedom,” p. 71-72.
3. In 1647 Nathaniel Bacon was born. He led 'Bacon’s Rebellion,' which united poor blacks and poor whites in Virginia to kill all Indians. Ruling class feared that such union might threaten them; hastened transition to racial slavery. a. "It was the first rebellion in the American colonies in which discontented frontiersmen took part; a similar uprising in Maryland took place later that year. The alliance between former indentured servants and Africans against bond-servitude disturbed the ruling class, who responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery." Bacon s Rebellion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia 4. The first explicit law passed in America that recognized slavery as a perpetual condition, extending to future offspring, appeared in 1661 in Virginia. Franklin, Op. Ci
4. 5. There is the fabrication that the Founders were all in favor of slavery. Not true. In Virginia, Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry and James Madison all publicly advocated the abolition of slavery. Phillips, “American Negro Slavery,” p. 122-124. It was the Founder's disgust with the institution of slavery that had them insert into the Constitution: "The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over if, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. " Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Had they not done so, the South's representation in Congress would have precluded ever getting rid of slavery.

6. The Founders, and most of the earliest settlers were of English stock, and, in fact, demands that they be treated as such under English law was on of the irritants that led to the Revolution.
And the English had no love for slavery.

a. June 22, 1772 Slavery abolished in England: A British judge declared that slavery was “so odious” that it could not exist as common law, a decree, known as “the Somerset decision,” that led to the emancipation of 15,000 slaves living in England at the time. The fear that the crown would enact a similar ruling in the New World, led Southern colonists to join with their northern neighbors in a fight that led to the American Revolution. [ A young black man named Someset, kidnapped from a West African village at age 9, and purchased in 1749 by a merchant named Charles Stewart, escaped and was recaptured in October, 1771. His godparents petitioned the Court of King’s Bench for a writ of habeas corpus with affidavits that Somerset was being held against his will. The judge, Lord Mansfield, concurred.]

"...The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political; but only positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory: it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from a decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." Somerset v Stewart - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



So....blacks were originally treated as indentured servants, just as whites were.
The English background of most colonials, was the reason that voices were raised against the institution from the very beginning of the nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Despite what they advocated, nonetheless, the Virginians were slave owners, Washington freeing his slaves upon his death, and Jefferson freeing his five children by Sally Hemings. TJ could not free Sally because she was the property of her dead half-sister, TJ's wife, who had passed her on by will to a daughter.

I like your analysis of the English background to a growing dislike of the system in the colonies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Despite what they advocated, nonetheless, the Virginians were slave owners, Washington freeing his slaves upon his death, and Jefferson freeing his five children by Sally Hemings. TJ could not free Sally because she was the property of her dead half-sister, TJ's wife, who had passed her on by will to a daughter.

I like your analysis of the English background to a growing dislike of the system in the colonies.

There is no more proof that Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings than there is that J. Edgar Hoover ever wore a dress.
These are the mouthings of congenital liars and Liberals....

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. So...how and why was slavery so entrenched in the South?

Cotton.

Harvesting the cotton crop is labor intensive, so, the need for cheap- or free- labor.

The crop was responsible for the success of the South, for it's profitability- and not just in America!

Industrial Britain depended on the South's cotton for their economy, as well.

a. 75% of the world's cotton, and up to 84% of Britain's, came from the South's cotton fields.
The Cotton Economy in the South FREE The Cotton Economy in the South information Encyclopedia.com Find The Cotton Economy in the South research

b. In Britain's industrial heartland, where all but 500 of the country's 2,650 cotton factories, employing 440 000 people, were located,
A history of the Lancashire cotton mills

c. "In 1861 the London Times estimated that one fifth of the British population was dependent, directly or indirectly, on the success of the cotton districts." "Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.72


8. So....if the South needed slavery....but they knew that the attitude in the nation, from the Founders on down, was in opposition, how did they view their future?


For the short term, they simply accepted things as static, that their representation in Congress would keep things as they were.

But, long term....many in the South thought that they might not be able to beat the North militarily, but- due to its need for their cotton.... mightiest military force, England would back them because of their need.


So...England, which abolished slavery long before....but its industry thrived on the product that the South provided.....
...what would England do?

 

[WelfareQueen]

Your facts above are absolutely correct. Chattel slavery evolved over decades. And most of the Founders knew slavery was wrong and feared it would eventually tear apart the Nation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Despite what they advocated, nonetheless, the Virginians were slave owners, Washington freeing his slaves upon his death, and Jefferson freeing his five children by Sally Hemings. TJ could not free Sally because she was the property of her dead half-sister, TJ's wife, who had passed her on by will to a daughter.

I like your analysis of the English background to a growing dislike of the system in the colonies.

There is no more proof that Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings than there is that J. Edgar Hoover ever wore a dress. These are the mouthings of congenital liars and Liberals....

You don't know history, then, dear. The difference is not one of ideology but of science and history. In other words, you are unprofessional and a hack.

Fawn McKay Brodie alerted historians to the fact the plantation registers reveal only one male of the DNA set available to Sally nine months before each of the births, TJ, years before DNA testing was available, in Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History. You are wrong, as usual.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account

"The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, entered the public arena during Jefferson's first term as president, and it has remained a subject of discussion and disagreement for two centuries. Based on documentary, scientific, statistical, and oral history evidence, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) Research Committee Report on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (January 2000) remains the most comprehensive analysis of this historical topic. Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings." Ask.com

 

[WelfareQueen]

I have seen the DNA evidence. Thomas Jefferson or his brother fathered at least one of Sally Hemmings children. That is an absolute certainty. Since his brother had very little direct contact with Sally.....yeah....Jefferson is the father.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Despite what they advocated, nonetheless, the Virginians were slave owners, Washington freeing his slaves upon his death, and Jefferson freeing his five children by Sally Hemings. TJ could not free Sally because she was the property of her dead half-sister, TJ's wife, who had passed her on by will to a daughter.

I like your analysis of the English background to a growing dislike of the system in the colonies.

There is no more proof that Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings than there is that J. Edgar Hoover ever wore a dress. These are the mouthings of congenital liars and Liberals....

You don't know history, then, dear. The difference is not one of ideology but of science and history. In other words, you are unprofessional and a hack.

Fawn McKay Brodie alerted historians to the fact the plantation registers reveal only one male of the DNA set available to Sally nine months before each of the births, TJ, years before DNA testing was available, in Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History. You are wrong, as usual.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account

"The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, entered the public arena during Jefferson's first term as president, and it has remained a subject of discussion and disagreement for two centuries. Based on documentary, scientific, statistical, and oral history evidence, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) Research Committee Report on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (January 2000) remains the most comprehensive analysis of this historical topic. Ten years later, TJF and most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of the six children of Sally Hemings mentioned in Jefferson's records, including Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston Hemings." Ask.com

Wrong.

None of you Liberals understand the science involved.

But that never stops you from attacking the Founders.

You should know by now that I am never wrong.
Of course your history of lying involves simply ignoring same.


1. "Since Jefferson had no male descendants, the recent DNA testing was done by comparing the DNA of the male descendants of the sons of Sally Hemings to that of the male descendants of the brother of Thomas Jefferson's father (TJ's uncle). Because the DNA evidence isnotderived in such a way as to exclude any descendantsbutthose of Thomas Jefferson, this means that, from a scientific and technical standpoint, any male of the Jefferson family descended from Jefferson's grandfather and living at that time could have been the father of Sally Hemings' son, Eston. One of the sons of Sally Hemings, allegedly also fathered by Thomas Jefferson, was demonstrated by this testing not to have the Jefferson Y chromosome.

But "could have been" is a hedge term, and is equivalent to admitting that the evidence is not conclusive with respect to Thomas Jefferson."
Jeffersonian Perspective DNA Sally Hemings




2. "But those tests didn’t even involve DNA from Thomas Jefferson and only established that Eston was probably fathered by any one of more than two dozen Jefferson men living in Virginia at the time, “The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy” asserts. In fact, the scholars point to Jefferson’s brother, Randolph, as the likely father of Hemings’ son."
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings one of history s myths - CSMonitor.com




3. "Although Nature's retraction and modification of its initial announcement was far more significant than its release, the retraction received little notice. The result is that the reputation of Jefferson has been permanently tarnished by "scientific evidence" which actually did not prove that Thomas Jefferson fatheredanyillegitimate child. But, as the Wall Street Journal noted, "Of course, the backtracking comes a little late to change the hundreds of other headlines fingering Jefferson."11The effect has been unfortunate, for as one reporter who covered the DNA story accurately noted, "Defective scholarship is difficult to recall."12
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings The Search for Truth

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have seen the DNA evidence. Thomas Jefferson or his brother fathered at least one of Sally Hemmings children. That is an absolute certainty. Since his brother had very little direct contact with Sally.....yeah....Jefferson is the father.

"Thomas Jefferson or his brother fathered at least one of Sally Hemmings children. That is an absolute certainty."

You lost it at "absolute certainty."


"When one examines the body of the article, it is clear that such a definite conclusion is not supported by the actual findings, since the DNA tests were performed on the descendants of Thomas Jefferson's uncle, not on those of Thomas Jefferson himself (Thomas Jefferson had no male-line descendants), and any of a large number of persons living at the time could have supplied the DNA to Sally.

.... "Due to complaints to Nature by myself and others, Dr. Foster issued another story in the January 7, 1999, issue of Nature stating that it was true that men of Randolph Jefferson's family could have fathered Sally Heming's later children."
Jeffersonian Perspective DNA Sally Hemings

 

[PoliticalChic]

The South, completely controlled by the Democrat Party, championed slavery, and believed that their control of the world cotton market would induce Britain to use its navy to nullify the North's control of the seas.


9. Senator James Henry Hammond, in what became known as the "Cotton is King" speech:

" Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us we could bring the whole world to our feet.

The South is perfectly competent to go on, one, two, or three years without planting a seed of cotton. I believe that if she was to plant but half her cotton, for three years to come, it would be an immense advantage to her. I am not so sure but that after three years' entire abstinence she would come out stronger than ever she was before, and better prepared to enter afresh upon her great career of enterprise.

What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years? I will not stop to depict what every one can imagine, butthis is certain: England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her, save the South.No, you dare not make war on cotton.No power on earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is king."
James Henry Hammond Cotton is King


a. This, from Democrat Hammond in support of slavery, an example of Democrats then... "In all societies that must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life."
mudsill theory


.....and Democrats now: "...in 2008, former President Bill Clinton said of [Obama]: “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Bill Clinton made insensitive 8216 race jab 8217 about Obama in 2008 New York Post

Difficult to see any change of attitude, huh?



b. Democrat Hammond gave that speech in 1858. The Southern elite already thought they had an ace up their sleeve with which to coax Britain.

c. Senator Hammond's South Carolina was the first state to respond to Lincoln's election (Novermber 6, 1860): it called a convention on whether to secede....the vote was announced on December 20, 1860: 169-0 to secede.

Guess what party that was?

d. London Times: "there is nothing in all the dark caves of human passion so cruel and deadly as the hatred the South Carolinians profess for the Yankees."
May 28, 1861

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. "Like all educated Southerners in the summer of 1861, [they] hoped one morning to hear the news that Great Britain had recognized the independence of the Confederate States. In May a delegation of rebel commissioners, headed by William Lowndes Yancey, had arrived in London for an audience with the British foreign secretary, Lord John Russell. The rebels took great heart from what was said. Russell had discussed the constitutional rights of secession, and Yancey had pledged the South's desire for free trade, reminding the British minister of the importance to his people of Southern cotton. Russell's principal concern, however, was the issue of the African slave trade. He had heard that the Confederate government was keen to restore this abomination. Was this true? Yancey reassured Russell that the South "had prohibited the slave-trade, and did not mean to revive it."


Lord Russell was in a tricky position, as were all the members of the British government. Though they opposed slavery, there wasn't a true democrat among them, not in the mold of Abraham Lincoln [who] could never have risen to become a British minister; to be that, one had to have been born into privilege, with wealth and property the only prerequisites. The members of the British government believed in "aristocratic government," and anyone who challenged them was crushed mercilessly......therefore, ministers such as Lord Russell and the prime minister, seventy-seven-year-old Lord Palmerston, had more in common with the Confederate government than they did with the Federal. Lincoln's administration believed in equal rights and espoused the cause of the workingman, themes that were anathema to the British government."
"Double Death: The True Story of Pryce Lewis, the Civil War's Most Daring Spy,"byGavin Mortimer, p.70-71




11. So....it turned out Britain was not as concerned about the impact on the cotton trade as the South thought!

a. Lord Palmerston:Britain would refuse to recognize Southern sovereignty.

b. London Times: "....Southern rights are now more clearly understood, and in any case since war, though greatly to be regretted, was now at hand, it was England's business tokeep strictly out of it and to maintain neutrality."
May 9, 1861



c. On May 14th, Queen Victoria issued Britain's "Proclamation of Neutrality." The proclamationwas avidly reported in the American press, with Harper's Weekly summarizing it in its edition of June 8.

"THE proclamation of the Queen has been issued by the Privy Council at Whitehall, warning all British subjects frominterfering, at their peril, with either party in the American conflict,or giving aid and comfort in any way, by personal service and supplying munitions of war, to either party. The proclamation announces it as the intention of the British Government to preserve the strictest neutrality in the contest between the Government of the United States and the Government of those States calling themselves the Confederate States of America."
Civil War News



Remember the Democrat Senator from South Carolina claiming..."....we could bring the whole world to our feet."

Sounds a lot like “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

Two dopes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC is quoting nonsense.

Most of the historians, most of the Jefferson historical family alive today, and most of the scientists will not agree with PC.

The DNA says the evidence reveals the father of the Hemings children was from the Jefferson clan.

The plantation registers place only TJ at the plantation for each of the nine months prior to the births.

These are the two crucial, salient facts in the discussion of the Hemings' parents.

Nothing that PC has posted refutes that TJ is the only candidate in historical time and scientific DNA for the children's daddy,

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is quoting nonsense.

Most of the historians, most of the Jefferson historical family alive today, and most of the scientists will not agree with PC.

The DNA says the evidence reveals the father of the Hemings children was from the Jefferson clan.

The plantation registers place only TJ at the plantation for each of the nine months prior to the births.

These are the two crucial, salient facts in the discussion of the Hemings' parents.

Nothing that PC has posted refutes that TJ is the only candidate in historical time and scientific DNA for the children's daddy,

Aww, it's so cute when you try to talk about things you don't understand.

And, you certainly don't understand DNA.


Beyond your normal stupidity, the real reason to attempt to smear President Jefferson is your virulent hatred of America and American heroes.
Comes out in so many ways when you Liberals post.


"What is the purpose of these scurrilous attacks on a truly great man, based on the flimsiest of evidence? Why do so many feel compelled to expend so much time and energy in such a frenzy to trash the reputation of our Founding Fathers?

It has become unfashionable to speak of one's love of country, and more fashionable to trash it and everything noble about it. ... We seem to live in an age pervaded by a self-destructive tabloid mentality which has taken over, not just newspapers seeking any kind of sensationalism, but even highly trained academics.

Every effort is made to discredit the character of the Founding Fathers, and to tear down the position they hold in the American mind."
Jeffersonian Perspective DNA Sally Hemings

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. So....believing that they had England in their pocket was one mistake the slavers of the Democrat Party made.

The larger one was attacking the North.

a. Major Robert Anderson and 85 men were stranded in Fort Sumter.
Surrounding him were hundreds of militiamen and coastal guns.

b. Lincoln refused to give the fort up, but the fort was running out of food: if he sent a supply convoy into Charleston Bay, he would be blamed for starting the war.....but how could he give in, and give up the fort?
William Seward tried to undermine Lincoln....telling Lincoln to give up the fort for 'goodwill.'

c. On April 5, Lincoln dispatched a fleet of supply ships with the proviso that was relayed to Jefferson Davis: the vessels would be unarmed, with the only cargo "food for hungry men."
Firing on the defenseless ships would have been an act of war by the Confederacy.

d. On Tuesday, April 9, Davis held a cabinet meeting, deciding on war. Three days later, and hours before the ships would arrive....the Southern forces attacked the fort.
Gavin Mortimer, Op.Cit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. Civil War....the North wins.

To put it another way, the Republicans won, crushing the Democrats and their desire to maintain the institution of slavery.

And, as per the thread title, an anniversary: December 6th, 1865 ....13th Amendment, a Republican amendment, was ratified: slavery abolished.


Of course, the Democrat Party didn't give up: they passed all sorts of Jim Crow laws, and maintained racialism through their military wing, the KKK.



And here is the irony:
An argument could be made that, just as Joseph Stalin and the communist were the real winners of WWII, so the progeny of those supporters of slavery, the Democrats, turned out to be the winners by bending their efforts toward control of the public schools and the methods of dissemination of information, the media.


By doing so, they've actually convinced the less astute that it was the Republicans who were the supporters of slavery.....


Bizarre.


So....today, December 6th, 1865, the amendment passed by the party that won the election of 1860, and won the Civil War, and passed the amendments that advanced the rights of black Americans, was ratified.


And the party that blocked the Civil Rights bill of the 50s, and stopped every anti-lynching bill that was raised in the Senate, gets almost every vote by blacks today.

Yup, ironic.