The TRUTH about slavery in the U.S.A.

[P@triot]

There is absolutely no evidence that Jefferson violently raped anyone.

Technically he did rape Sally Hemmings since she was a slave- and could not give consent.

Considering he never had relations with Sally Hemmings, he definitely didn't "technically" rape her either. DNA proved that he never fathered a single child with Hemmings. He was completely exonerated.

 

[Picaro]

All a non-issue, since blacks as a people, even former slaves, weren't opposed to slavery or racism for that matter, and it is still alive and well in Africa today.

Human Trafficking & Modern-day Slavery in Liberia

Just ignore the ridiculous nonsense about them 'learning it all from Whitey'; they're just injecting some PC garbage for appearances sake.

It's like having to listen to Nazis complain about fascism, utterly ridiculous.

“ Fun Reconstruction Facts”

Another weak seam in the Republican fabric joined predominately mulatto antebellum free Negroes and the largely black ex-slaves.

In Louisiana and N. Carolina, the early monopolization of black leadership by the mulatto class aroused the color and class tensions never far from the surface in the black community.

A mulatto candidate for the 1868 constitutional convention in South Carolina said: “ If ever there is a ****** government – an unmixed ****** government – established in South Carolina, I shall move.”

On the other side, a black leader said of the mulattoes: “To what race do they belong? … I know that my ancestors trod the burning sands of Africa, but why should men in whose veins run a great preponderance of white blood seek to specially ally themselves with the black man, prate of 'our race', when they are simply mongrels.”

p.560, Ordeal By Fire – The Civil War and Reconstruction - James McPherson, Knopf, 1982.

... and on and on. Only the mentally retarded think that just because some 'minority' was oppressed somewhere they were hapless innocent victims and possessed of some sort of 'moral authority' and their 'oppressors' ancestors owe them something 'special'.

here's an appropriate approach to the study of history:

TRIGGER WARNING FOR SNOWFLAKES!!! COVER YOUR EYES AND LEAVE THE ROOM!!!! ...

And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take Prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today, people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us. History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive, selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play? -Dave WIlliams, George Mason Univ.

 

[P@triot]

If the Constitution was NOT created by racist oppressive white men, why did it include the 1807 anti-slave trade clause which empowered domestic slave holders and enriched them?

That was actually the purpose of it, unless YOU don't know the history of slavery in the US?

The prohibition of international slave trading was overwhelmingly supported by established slave holders who then got to sell their own slaves as capital rather than mere labor in an open market.

Well...for starters...it didn't. No such "clause" exists in the U.S. Constitution. Never did. So you're either lying or you are a prime example of the uninformed, uneducated progressive minion that has been duped by their progressive masters.

Now - what I think you're attempting to refer to here was the federal law enacted in 1807 (which was not an amendment to the U.S. Constitution) which prohibited slaves from being imported into the U.S. Or the exact opposite of what you claimed above.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Article 1 Section 9

That's not the 1807 anti-slavery trade clause cited above by Brambo and highlighted above by me. Would you like to try again?

Brambo clearly stated above that the U.S. Constitution "included the 1807 anti-slavery clause". I said it didn't and never has. Was that a deliberate attempt by you to be disingenuous and protect your precious progressive ideology from being exposed or was that your inability to read and understand what was written by all parties?

 

[Syriusly]

There is absolutely no evidence that Jefferson violently raped anyone.

Technically he did rape Sally Hemmings since she was a slave- and could not give consent.

Considering he never had relations with Sally Hemmings, he definitely didn't "technically" rape her either. DNA proved that he never fathered a single child with Hemmings. He was completely exonerated.

Nope.

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation- which runs Montecello said the evidence points to Jefferson fathering Hemmings children- here is from the website

Shortly after the DNA test results were released in November 1998, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation formed a research committee consisting of nine members of the foundation staff, including four with Ph.D.s. In January 2000, the committee reported that the weight of all known evidence--from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data--indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was likely the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children listed in Monticello records--Harriet (born 1795; died in infancy); Beverly (born 1798); an unnamed daughter (born 1799; died in infancy); Harriet (born 1801); Madison (born 1805); and Eston (born 1808).

Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello

 

[ClosedCaption]

It is sad that such great men have been so wrongfully demonized because of those with an agenda for power over others. It's particularly disturbing that our public schools are not teaching students the truth about our founders. It is time we change that. It is time the American people are educated on what actually occurred in history.

Its funny, although you shown plenty of emotion you haven't presented anything other than that. What "actually occurred" in history? Hell, who knows...you sure forgot to mention it.

 

[Syriusly]

A single paragraph cannot do justice to the issue of Jefferson's failure to free more than a handful of his slaves. Some of the possible reasons include: the economic value of his human property (at certain times, his slaves were mortgaged and thus could not be freed or sold); his lifelong view that emancipation had to go hand-in-hand with expatriation of the freed slaves; his paternalistic belief that slaves were incapable of supporting themselves in freedom and his fear they would become burden to society; his belief in gradual measures operating through the legal processes of government; and, after 1806, a state law that required freed slaves to leave Virginia within a year. Jefferson wrote that this law did not "permit" Virginians to free their slaves; he apparently thought that, for an enslaved African American, slavery was preferable to freedom far from one's home and family.

Actually - a single sentence can do justice to the issue of Jefferson's failure to free his slaves: it was against the law..

Property | Thomas Jefferson's Monticello
During his lifetime, Jefferson freed two enslaved men. At his death, Jefferson bequeathed freedom to five men in his will.

So you think Thomas Jefferson broke the law when he freed two slaves?

 

[Syriusly]

All a non-issue, since blacks as a people, even former slaves, weren't opposed to slavery or racism for that matter, and it is still alive and well in Africa today.v.

Well I am sure it being a non-issue will stop P*triot boy from posting in the thread he started....

 

[Picaro]

Patriot is an Alt Right guy who caught posting stupid stuff.

Articles I and IV clearly identify that slavery is part of the Constitution. Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV beat down people like Patriot.

It's clear Jake owes us all reparations for his ridiculous infantile trolling. $3 million apiece should cover the first installment.

 

[P@triot]

do you have any sources for any of this or are you just making it up as you go along?

As a matter of fact, I do. And I posted it in my second post. How embarrassing that you just got caught failing to read the link and listen to the audio before commenting.

it sounds more like desperate white supremacist apologism

You sound more like horrified progressive in the face of reality...

 

[P@triot]

Legally Jefferson was almost certainly a rapist. Because legally now- a slave cannot consent to sex.

Complete progressive nonsense. Here is how a slabs could consent to sex:

Owner: "Would you like to have sex"?

Slave: "Sure!"

Boom! Consent.

 

[P@triot]

Bullshit.

Well that's intelligent progressive retort. "Bullshit"

I gave you BOTH laws and exactly when they occurred. If you can't accept the truth, that's your problem. It was against the law to free slaves. It against the law under King George III when we were colonies of England and it continued early on when we declared independence. That is a fact.

 

[Syriusly]

Bullshit.

Well that's intelligent progressive retort. "Bullshit"

I gave you BOTH laws and exactly when they occurred. If you can't accept the truth, that's your problem. It was against the law to free slaves. It against the law under King George III when we were colonies of England and it continued early on when we declared independence. That is a fact.

So do you think then that Thomas Jefferson broke the law when he freed those two slaves?

 

[Syriusly]

Legally Jefferson was almost certainly a rapist. Because legally now- a slave cannot consent to sex.

Complete progressive nonsense. Here is how a slabs could consent to sex:

Owner: "Would you like to have sex"?

Slave: "Sure!"

Boom! Consent.

Owner: "Would you like to have sex"?
Slave: Hmmm no....
Owner: would you prefer that I have you whipped for the next 30 days....

Slaves cannot legally give consent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bullshit.

Well that's intelligent progressive retort. "Bullshit"

I gave you BOTH laws and exactly when they occurred. If you can't accept the truth, that's your problem. It was against the law to free slaves. It against the law under King George III when we were colonies of England and it continued early on when we declared independence. That is a fact.

Post your links, or it is bull shit. Syriusly, get behind me on this and call him out here. He is too afraid to confront me, so he will use you. Fine force him to acknowledge his words are not facts.

 

[P@triot]

It was the British who stopped the original abolition movement in America. In 1773 and 1774, states like Rhode Island and Connecticut and Massachusetts and Pennsylvania passed anti-slavery laws. But in 1774, King George III vetoed every anti-slavery law in America. That’s what caused Thomas Jefferson to write a clause in the Declaration which favored ending slavery (three southern states demanded it be removed). When America separated from Great Britain in 1776, those states were the first ones to end slavery. Once America was free from the British empire, the ending of slavery began. By 1800, every northern colony had abolished slavery in America.

Slavery and the Founders Part II: George Washington

 

[P@triot]

Legally Jefferson was almost certainly a rapist. Because legally now- a slave cannot consent to sex.

Complete progressive nonsense. Here is how a slabs could consent to sex:

Owner: "Would you like to have sex"?

Slave: "Sure!"

Boom! Consent.

Owner: "Would you like to have sex"?
Slave: Hmmm no....
Owner: would you prefer that I have you whipped for the next 30 days....

Slaves cannot legally give consent.

That's operating off of the ignorant position that someone who asked would force it on them anyway. Why would one ask if they were going to force them anyway?

You've been really indoctrinated by your progressive masters, uh chief?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Patriot is a far right radical Mormon using Glenn Beck's freemen/skousen nonsense. He has no idea of American history, law, or culture.

I should have realized it from the first post.

 

[initforme]

Slave owners were scum...vermin..case closed. I could care less if they were founding fathers or what party they were from. A person cannot be property. To consider them as such demonstrates DEVIANCE.

 

[initforme]

Plantation owners were greedy and above all else...LAZY. Had to have cheap labor.

 

[PurpleOwl]

do you have any sources for any of this or are you just making it up as you go along?

As a matter of fact, I do. And I posted it in my second post. How embarrassing that you just got caught failing to read the link and listen to the audio before commenting.

it sounds more like desperate white supremacist apologism

You sound more like horrified progressive in the face of reality...

your climbing over mountains of evidence to pick up a crumb, just pretend that Thomas Jefferson was a democrat and he did all that stuff.