Article about the Start of the Revolutionary War: Notice Something?

The Founding Father's owned slaves much like the rest of the rich folk all over the world owned slaves.

The Constitution does not endorse slavery, as many of the Founders, like Ben Franklin, intended to do away with slavery later on, which they did.

They decided to fight that battle another day in order to form the Republic and break away from the slave owning British.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson wanted to free the slaves in the Declaration of Independence, but recanted to allow the Republic to form instead of break apart which it would have.

Thanks for playing.
So America was corrupted from the start by the sin of slavery.

Thanks for playing.
 
So America was corrupted from the start by the sin of slavery.

Thanks for playing.
The entire world was corrupted with slavery dolt.

In fact, today there is more slavery in the world than at any time in human history, despite it being officially made illegal over much of the world.

The Left could actually do something about reliving such slavery today, but instead focuses on the slavery of 200 plus years ago they can do nothing about nor ever make right. All they do is pick off scabs of racial animosity that justified slavery back then, and then use it for your own political advantage today.
 
An honest evaluation that the "REvolution" was bunch of rich slave rapists who didn't want to pay their fair share in taxes?
Wrong, most of the opposition to British taxes was in the North because the British not only had their taxes, but restricted colonial trade to British ports. The rich plantation owners of the South had no problem paying taxes and their support of the Congress was always lukewarm.
What the rebels wanted was their fair treatment as Englishmen by the Crown.
 

Shot Heard Round the World’ musket balls recovered from site of famous first-day Revolutionary War battle​


First, this could go in the Media Forum, but this is also somewhat 2A related. I want to point out, whether intentional or not, the specific use of words that are used and not used when describing why the Brits were coming to America and what they were looking for.

IMO, this is a perfect example of the media, controlling narratives, and shying away from actually telling the whole truth.

Can you find what is "Missing" from the context of the article?
No mention of Crispus Attucks. Is this another leftoid "erase the black man from sight and memory" type of deal? :dunno:

Crispus Attucks | Revolutionary War, African American, Patriot

His name was the only one widely known.
 
Last edited:
So America was corrupted from the start by the sin of slavery.

Thanks for playing.
Attucks wasn't a slave. He was a runaway slave/free man and 1st mate on a ship. He died that day.

You didn't know that, did you? He was out there facing down the British and paid the ultimate price.
 
Wrong, most of the opposition to British taxes was in the North because the British not only had their taxes, but restricted colonial trade to British ports. The rich plantation owners of the South had no problem paying taxes and their support of the Congress was always lukewarm.
What the rebels wanted was their fair treatment as Englishmen by the Crown.

Actually, they wanted a lot of things that should be considered problematic today.

For instance, the British wanted to restrict settlement west of the Appalachians because that would just antagonize the Native Americans unnecessarily. The Colonists couldn't wait to get their hands on all that new land to exploit.

Slavery was falling out of favor in England, but the Southern Plantation class wanted it to continue.

So any notion that the Revolution was fought over "Noble" causes like "Democracy" is kind of silly.
 
Attucks wasn't a slave. He was a runaway slave/free man and 1st mate on a ship. He died that day.

You didn't know that, did you? He was out there facing down the British and paid the ultimate price.
No, I knew about his participation the Boston Massacre (which actually occurred before the revolution!)

I just didn't consider it relevant.
 
Yes... "Military Supplies". Which is appears to be an attempt to not use Firearms, arms, guns, rifles, etc. Which are the same arms that the citizens used. Intentional? Probably.

Um, no, they were attempted to seize the armory at Lexington. This contained more than just guns, but also powder, shot, provisions, uniforms and other supplies to arm the militia.

Even Wiki uses the term "military supplies" to describe what they were after.

About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord. Through effective intelligence gathering, Patriot leaders had received word weeks before the expedition that their supplies might be at risk and had moved most of them to other locations. On the night before the battle, warning of the British expedition had been rapidly sent from Boston to militias in the area by several riders, including Paul Revere and Samuel Prescott, with information about British plans. The initial mode of the Army's arrival by water was signaled from the Old North Church in Boston to Charlestown using lanterns to communicate "one if by land, two if by sea".
 
The country was founded on insurrection, and we can tell today who would have gleefully turned the FF's over to the British for execution, in fact demand to watch and celebrate.

No
Revolutionary War was fought by the Continental Army and later French forces
 

Forum List

Back
Top