The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

[AmericanFirst]

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery




The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.


*snip*

Like most libtards on the constitution, you are completely wrong.

 

[squeeze berry]

And now people are on the defensive and want to defend the Constitution to RESIST becoming slaves to a govt that doesn't answer to it.

Same with the First Amendment, it was written to defend religious freedom from govt intrusion, and now it is used to reject any deemed religious reference from mixing in or being included/endorsed by govt.

The point is NOT to abuse laws or force to oppress, but only use for defense of the law and one's rights. We need to maintain checks and balances to prevent abuse by either side of any conflict, political religious or otherwise. We can't jsut take one side and railroad over the other, that's biased and just as oppressive; we need to include all interests equally to be constitutionally inclusive by the 14th Amendment. We can't lose sight of what the laws mean.

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery


The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.


*snip*

The only check you'll be involved with is when they check you into the nuthouse. No wonder you are worried about losing those guns!

you get to say who is nuts?
Obama too?

we need to have a war over that

 

[Dubya]

And now people are on the defensive and want to defend the Constitution to RESIST becoming slaves to a govt that doesn't answer to it.

Same with the First Amendment, it was written to defend religious freedom from govt intrusion, and now it is used to reject any deemed religious reference from mixing in or being included/endorsed by govt.

The point is NOT to abuse laws or force to oppress, but only use for defense of the law and one's rights. We need to maintain checks and balances to prevent abuse by either side of any conflict, political religious or otherwise. We can't jsut take one side and railroad over the other, that's biased and just as oppressive; we need to include all interests equally to be constitutionally inclusive by the 14th Amendment. We can't lose sight of what the laws mean.

The only check you'll be involved with is when they check you into the nuthouse. No wonder you are worried about losing those guns!

you get to say who is nuts?
Obama too?

we need to have a war over that

No one is interested in your hots for Obama. Remember, he's married.

 

[beagle9]

I am basing what I wrote from actual U.S. history books, read for over a period of 50 years. I fell in love with U.S. History when I was 10 years old and have been reading and learning about it every since.

They are trying to change those books these days also or re-interpret them to mean something else, but I guarantee you that some thing's that work for the vile changers will always remain in tact. We should monitor every attempt of change or change that there is, in order to keep fairness and balance within it all, so it is that certain people should always keep their seat at the table without waver no matter what.

How does the fact that I'm talking about actual documents fit in? I'm just going by what the historians and experts who examined these documents say. I deal with what is, whether I like it that way or not.

Your interpretation, but is it ours, and will you get mad or go mad if it isn't?

 

[techieny]

Why can't we all embrace our heritage and celebrate what great thinkers thought we should be. I fail to find that deep thinking in the current political discourse!

 

[Dubya]

They are trying to change those books these days also or re-interpret them to mean something else, but I guarantee you that some thing's that work for the vile changers will always remain in tact. We should monitor every attempt of change or change that there is, in order to keep fairness and balance within it all, so it is that certain people should always keep their seat at the table without waver no matter what.

How does the fact that I'm talking about actual documents fit in? I'm just going by what the historians and experts who examined these documents say. I deal with what is, whether I like it that way or not.

Your interpretation, but is it ours, and will you get mad or go mad if it isn't?

I posted links on the documents and used the North Carolina document as an example to prove that historians know those documents were sent to all the 13 states by George Washington. Other states have them, but the North Carolina document was stolen during the Civil War.

There is no interpretation.

 

[beagle9]

How does the fact that I'm talking about actual documents fit in? I'm just going by what the historians and experts who examined these documents say. I deal with what is, whether I like it that way or not.

Your interpretation, but is it ours, and will you get mad or go mad if it isn't?

I posted links on the documents and used the North Carolina document as an example to prove that historians know those documents were sent to all the 13 states by George Washington. Other states have them, but the North Carolina document was stolen during the Civil War.

There is no interpretation.

If there is no interpretation by you, then how or why did you write this OP or what was your purpose in writing this OP, I mean if you did not want to stir debate over it?

 

[beagle9]

Everything is a racist plot.

That wasnt the point....good job on you and who thanked you for missing the point.

The point is that it was changed for something we dont have today.. We dont have slaves anymore. No welfare isnt the same so dont bother. This isnt 1775, it might be time to look at telhe amendment and changing things up a little.

No need to change anything, except for what is going wrong with people today, in which has nothing to do with the documents in which we were founded upon. The only reason for the want for these changes, is because there is a bigger agenda involved, where as the people who want changes, are then using the current events to make changes if possible (never let a crisis go to waste), and so this is so transparent these days, that we almost can read the script before it is written after the next tragedy happens in this nation.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery




The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.


*snip*

Like most libtards on the constitution, you are completely wrong.

Constitution is capitalized, dumbass.

 

[Avatar4321]

The scotus has already said gun laws are completely constitutional.


the right wing has just lost their minds

So you think it's crazy to want to be able to protect yourself and your family from evil men and oppressive governments? And yet, it's perfectly rational to ensure you cant protect yourself from either?

 

[Avatar4321]

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery




The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, "Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller." There were exemptions so "men in critical professions" like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work. Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 - including physicians and ministers - had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.


*snip*

Like most libtards on the constitution, you are completely wrong.

Constitution is capitalized, dumbass.

You realize that even if no one knew your prior history posting here, the OP alone would make any thinking person realize you shouldn't be throwing rocks in glass houses by calling someone else a dumbass.

 

[Dubya]

Your interpretation, but is it ours, and will you get mad or go mad if it isn't?

I posted links on the documents and used the North Carolina document as an example to prove that historians know those documents were sent to all the 13 states by George Washington. Other states have them, but the North Carolina document was stolen during the Civil War.

There is no interpretation.

If there is no interpretation by you, then how or why did you write this OP or what was your purpose in writing this OP, I mean if you did not want to stir debate over it?

What are you talking about? I didn't start this thread.

The last point I made was many states still have the document of the Bill of Rights sent to them by George Washington. There is no interpretation involved in looking at those documents, which are all the same. A Scribe just wrote the same thing 13 times.

 

[daveman]

You just gotta love liberal revision of history. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming the Founding Fathers set up the nation to have a big intrusive oppressive government, and they were all liberals, and small-government conservatives supported King George.

Oh, wait...

 

[Dubya]

You just gotta love liberal revision of history. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming the Founding Fathers set up the nation to have a big intrusive oppressive government, and they were all liberals, and small-government conservatives supported King George.

Oh, wait...

The Founding Fathers were born in what was called the Age of Reason. That's were people think logically about things. I don't hear you ever saying things about conservativism, it's always some partisan snipe against liberals. I doubt if you even know them and what you spend so much of your time addressing is your concept of a group of people.

It isn't that hard to research the history of what the Founder Fathers did in the Bill of Rights, but you aren't going to find it in sites that have a formed opinion and are only cherry picking points to support that opinion.

 

[daveman]

You just gotta love liberal revision of history. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming the Founding Fathers set up the nation to have a big intrusive oppressive government, and they were all liberals, and small-government conservatives supported King George.

Oh, wait...

The Founding Fathers were born in what was called the Age of Reason. That's were people think logically about things. I don't hear you ever saying things about conservativism, it's always some partisan snipe against liberals. I doubt if you even know them and what you spend so much of your time addressing is your concept of a group of people.

It's really not my fault that you don't pay attention.

It isn't that hard to research the history of what the Founder Fathers did in the Bill of Rights, but you aren't going to find it in sites that have a formed opinion and are only cherry picking points to support that opinion.

Indeed. And if you do some research, you'll find the Founding Fathers were classical liberals who supported personal liberty and limited government -- exactly like today's conservatives, and the polar opposite of today's liberals.

If you listen only to the leftist echo chambers, you'll learn that today's liberals are EXACTLY the same as the Founding Fathers. The only evidence to support this assertion, besides petulant foot-stamping, is the fact that "classical Liberals" and "modern Liberals" both share some letters.

 

[mudwhistle]

Today's' Liberal is yesterdays' Communist.

Liberals are into labels that sound good. They call themselves Progressives when in fact they are so much into destruction and conflict that there is no label for them.

 

[daveman]

Today's' Liberal is yesterdays' Communist.

Liberals are into labels that sound good. They call themselves Progressives when in fact they are so much into destruction and conflict that there is no label for them.

Ironically, progressives want the US to "progress" to the condition of the USSR circa 1958.

 

[Synthaholic]

You just gotta love liberal revision of history. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming the Founding Fathers set up the nation to have a big intrusive oppressive government, and they were all liberals, and small-government conservatives supported King George.

Oh, wait...

The Founding Fathers were born in what was called the Age of Reason. That's were people think logically about things. I don't hear you ever saying things about conservativism, it's always some partisan snipe against liberals. I doubt if you even know them and what you spend so much of your time addressing is your concept of a group of people.

It's really not my fault that you don't pay attention.

It isn't that hard to research the history of what the Founder Fathers did in the Bill of Rights, but you aren't going to find it in sites that have a formed opinion and are only cherry picking points to support that opinion.

Indeed. And if you do some research, you'll find the Founding Fathers were classical liberals who supported personal liberty and limited government -- exactly like today's conservatives, and the polar opposite of today's liberals.

If you listen only to the leftist echo chambers, you'll learn that today's liberals are EXACTLY the same as the Founding Fathers. The only evidence to support this assertion, besides petulant foot-stamping, is the fact that "classical Liberals" and "modern Liberals" both share some letters.

Utter bullshit.

Show some examples.

 

[Dubya]

You just gotta love liberal revision of history. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming the Founding Fathers set up the nation to have a big intrusive oppressive government, and they were all liberals, and small-government conservatives supported King George.

Oh, wait...

The Founding Fathers were born in what was called the Age of Reason. That's were people think logically about things. I don't hear you ever saying things about conservativism, it's always some partisan snipe against liberals. I doubt if you even know them and what you spend so much of your time addressing is your concept of a group of people.

It's really not my fault that you don't pay attention.

It isn't that hard to research the history of what the Founder Fathers did in the Bill of Rights, but you aren't going to find it in sites that have a formed opinion and are only cherry picking points to support that opinion.

Indeed. And if you do some research, you'll find the Founding Fathers were classical liberals who supported personal liberty and limited government -- exactly like today's conservatives, and the polar opposite of today's liberals.

If you listen only to the leftist echo chambers, you'll learn that today's liberals are EXACTLY the same as the Founding Fathers. The only evidence to support this assertion, besides petulant foot-stamping, is the fact that "classical Liberals" and "modern Liberals" both share some letters.

Do you see what I mean? You can't say what you believe and always talk about what the other person believes. There is very little content in what you say.

The Founding Father were almost unanimous in not wanting a standing army. Do you think that would fly today? Madison vetoed a bill a national bank, and the issue is what defined anti-federalists, and then that same year sent a message to Congress to pass a bill for a national bank. That's the bank that Jackson stopped funding before it's charter ran out. Jefferson agreed to purchase the Louisiana Purchase and stated he didn't believe a President had that authority. You see originally the United States was just trying to buy the port of New Orleans to insure goods could pass through the port.

The Founding Fathers had principles, but they weren't stubborn men holding to principle over reality.

 

[daveman]

The Founding Fathers were born in what was called the Age of Reason. That's were people think logically about things. I don't hear you ever saying things about conservativism, it's always some partisan snipe against liberals. I doubt if you even know them and what you spend so much of your time addressing is your concept of a group of people.

It's really not my fault that you don't pay attention.

It isn't that hard to research the history of what the Founder Fathers did in the Bill of Rights, but you aren't going to find it in sites that have a formed opinion and are only cherry picking points to support that opinion.

Indeed. And if you do some research, you'll find the Founding Fathers were classical liberals who supported personal liberty and limited government -- exactly like today's conservatives, and the polar opposite of today's liberals.

If you listen only to the leftist echo chambers, you'll learn that today's liberals are EXACTLY the same as the Founding Fathers. The only evidence to support this assertion, besides petulant foot-stamping, is the fact that "classical Liberals" and "modern Liberals" both share some letters.

Utter bullshit.

Show some examples.

Oh, you disagree that the Founding Fathers are just like modern liberals? You may be salvaged yet.

Nevertheless:

The Founding Liberals | Addicting Info

Today is the Fourth of July, a time when we as Americans celebrate our nations independence. Conservatives across the country are pretending to be patriotic. Liberals on the other hand are celebrating the biggest achievement that appears on their resume’: the founding of America and its government. You see, the Founding Fathers were, and always will be, liberals.​

Those Who Hate "Liberals" Really Hate a Free America

The rightist "conservative" media moguls who hate "liberals" actually hate a free America.

Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly, the Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal---they all rant at some unspecified species allegedly left of center.

But right from its birth, America has been the very definition of a liberal nation.

Today's Foxist ditto-heads would have hated all America's founders: Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Madison,

Adams, Paine, and even the father of the modern corporate state, Alexander Hamilton.

All were liberals, both classic and modern. The documents they wrote---the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights---all were the definition of liberal. Rush's "conservative" rightists would have hated them then. And though they won't admit it, they hate them now.​

Bill Maher: The Founding Fathers Wouldn't Have Liked George Bush

I'm in Boston today, getting ready for my standup special tomorrow night live on HBO (last shameless plug, I promise), and walking around the city has made me remember: oh yeah, America started here. That's right, America was invented by liberal men in Boston and Philadelphia. Not that I don't love all of America, but rednecks who think they're the real America should read a history book once in a while. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin, Madison -- the whole lot of them were well read, erudite, European thinking children of the enlightenment, and they would have had absolutely nothing in common and less to say to a cowboy simpleton like George Bush.​

And for some home-grown prog dumbassery:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/173845-its-july-4th-have-you-thanked-a-liberal-today.html

So, how are you going to weasel out of this one?