Does Ownership of Slaves Define a Historical Figure?

[Agit8r]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

They knew it was morally wrong. A few eventually freed slaves. Others used rationalization that the hard cruel world of wage labor might be worse, or that they would fall victim to nihilistic whites if freed, or recaptured and sold to more cruel masters. Probably window dressing for their guilt, or an outward display for those who dissaproved of the institution. However some also hatched a plan that led to the nation of Liberia

James Madison And The Slavery Issue - Best Free Essays Examples

.. d result from the act of manumission. This is rendered impossible by the prejudice of the whites, prejudices which must be considered as permanent…

redcowonline.com

 

[martybegan]

Maybe we build a Nat Turner monument.

There's a monument already, even if it's just a road sign monument.

Nope. He needs a statue.

Then do what the DoC and others did and raise funds and find a city that will put aside some space for it.

 

[JoeB131]

Not sure where you got that impression but no, it wasn't. You can argue that it had been identified as something that was wrong by that time, but in terms of law, and certainly in practice, in Europe slavery was very much alive in 1776.

You made my point for me. Europe was in the process of ending the practice.

In the UK slavery was ongoing until emancipation in the 1830's.

Actually, it had been outlawed in England proper for some time. In the 1830, they ended it in their remaining colonies like Jamaica

So really, the Founding Slave Rapists were in the wrong, and everyone knew it at the time.

 

[MarcATL]

The thing was, even when the Founding Slave Rapists were alive, people realized that slavery was wrong. It had already been outlawed in most of Europe at that point.

So, yes, we can wag our fingers at them all day.

At the same time this self-proclaimed conservative is using that disingenuous argument, you have others here on USMB talking about "they knew it was wrong, but that's why they made provisions in the Constitution for it to be changed in the future." So they're all flinging different and conflicting arguments around the site, but the key is, NONE of them correct each other.

Proof positive that it's all BOGUS!

 

[Fueri]

Not sure where you got that impression but no, it wasn't. You can argue that it had been identified as something that was wrong by that time, but in terms of law, and certainly in practice, in Europe slavery was very much alive in 1776.

You made my point for me. Europe was in the process of ending the practice.

In the UK slavery was ongoing until emancipation in the 1830's.

Actually, it had been outlawed in England proper for some time. In the 1830, they ended it in their remaining colonies like Jamaica

So really, the Founding Slave Rapists were in the wrong, and everyone knew it at the time.

No I didn't make your point, which was that it was "already outlawed in most of Europe" ~1776. Simply false. First country in Europe, whuch I cited and you have for some reason snipped was effective 1803.

And you are wrong about England as well. I provided the link.

"However, slavery continued to thrive in England itself, much like it did in the British Empire, until full emancipation in the 1830s"

People knew it was wrong, that much is true. It was on its way out.

Emancipation here was 1863, ~36 years after England. These are documented dates, not even debatable....

 

[Pogo]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

 

[martybegan]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

 

[DGS49]

As implied above, most slave owners did not consider this factor to be evil. The Slaves were clearly inferior to white men, they had been living as godless savages in the jungles of Africa, and despite their work and living conditions, were better off being slaves in American than they would have been in the jungle. Furthermore, with the raising of slaves as Christians, they could reap the inheritance of being saved, and enjoy a perpetual state of joy in the hereafter - which would not have been possible had they continued in Africa. Here, they were fed, clothed, and sheltered, perpetually, without a care in the world, as long as they did what they were told to do.

The life of a slave was not dramatically worse than that of a hired hand in the same geographical areas at the same time. You worked your ass off for little compensation - maybe nothing more than room and board. The difference being that a free white man could leave, although being penniless and without resources that freedom is a difficult check to cash.

So the theory is that EVERY SLAVEOWNER in the entire Confederate States of America (and some in the Union) was EVIL. In fact, there is scant record of ANY slave owner simply emancipating his slaves out of a sense of honor and decency, although it certainly happened on occasion.

Must be great to be so morally superior as to be able to condemn a whole segment of society from hundreds of years ago.

 

[Pogo]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

Because you posited an ass-ertion, that's why.

OP did the same thing. He can't prove his either.

Sic semper sweeping generalizations. They're a worthless crutch for those who can't target an argument.

 

[martybegan]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

Because you posited an ass-ertion, that's why.

OP did the same thing. He can't prove his either.

Sic semper sweeping generalizations. They're a worthless crutch for those who can't target an argument.

As usual Pogo evades the crux of the post for semantics.

 

[Pogo]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

Because you posited an ass-ertion, that's why.

OP did the same thing. He can't prove his either.

Sic semper sweeping generalizations. They're a worthless crutch for those who can't target an argument.

As usual Pogo evades the crux of the post for semantics.

As usual Pogo shoots the post out of the air for its fallaciousnessitude.

Plop.

 

[JoeB131]

o I didn't make your point, which was that it was "already outlawed in most of Europe" ~

yes, I did. Now go away, no one is interested in your ramblings.

As implied above, most slave owners did not consider this factor to be evil. The Slaves were clearly inferior to white men, they had been living as godless savages in the jungles of Africa, and despite their work and living conditions, were better off being slaves in American than they would have been in the jungle. Furthermore, with the raising of slaves as Christians, they could reap the inheritance of being saved, and enjoy a perpetual state of joy in the hereafter - which would not have been possible had they continued in Africa. Here, they were fed, clothed, and sheltered, perpetually, without a care in the world, as long as they did what they were told to do.

Uh, no, guy, having slightly lower technology did not make them "inferior". Your argument is to justify slavery with racism. Christianity is a fucked up religion, and we do no one any favors inflicting it on them.

The life of a slave was not dramatically worse than that of a hired hand in the same geographical areas at the same time. You worked your ass off for little compensation - maybe nothing more than room and board. The difference being that a free white man could leave, although being penniless and without resources that freedom is a difficult check to cash.

Uh, yeah, being a slave was worse.

Your owner could whip you with impunity.
Your owner could sell your children with impunity.
Your owner could rape you with impunity if you were a woman.

It was better than being poor dumb white trash in the south... In fact, they way the rich slaveowners got the poor dumb white trash to remove themselves from the Gene Pool (although not in entirely high enough numbers) was by pointing out that if slaves were free, they WOULD be equal to them.

 

[Fueri]

o I didn't make your point, which was that it was "already outlawed in most of Europe" ~

yes, I did. Now go away, no one is interested in your ramblings.

As implied above, most slave owners did not consider this factor to be evil. The Slaves were clearly inferior to white men, they had been living as godless savages in the jungles of Africa, and despite their work and living conditions, were better off being slaves in American than they would have been in the jungle. Furthermore, with the raising of slaves as Christians, they could reap the inheritance of being saved, and enjoy a perpetual state of joy in the hereafter - which would not have been possible had they continued in Africa. Here, they were fed, clothed, and sheltered, perpetually, without a care in the world, as long as they did what they were told to do.

Uh, no, guy, having slightly lower technology did not make them "inferior". Your argument is to justify slavery with racism. Christianity is a fucked up religion, and we do no one any favors inflicting it on them.

The life of a slave was not dramatically worse than that of a hired hand in the same geographical areas at the same time. You worked your ass off for little compensation - maybe nothing more than room and board. The difference being that a free white man could leave, although being penniless and without resources that freedom is a difficult check to cash.

Uh, yeah, being a slave was worse.

Your owner could whip you with impunity.
Your owner could sell your children with impunity.
Your owner could rape you with impunity if you were a woman.

It was better than being poor dumb white trash in the south... In fact, they way the rich slaveowners got the poor dumb white trash to remove themselves from the Gene Pool (although not in entirely high enough numbers) was by pointing out that if slaves were free, they WOULD be equal to them.

Sure, Joey. Your "facts" were wrong as usual, leaving you no rebuttal, so you respond with this non-response. Typical.

You'd think youd learn that you should check your facts before spouting your nonsense, but, hey, there's always next time...

 

[JoeB131]

Sure, Joey. Your "facts" were wrong as usual, leaving you no rebuttal, so you respond with this non-response. Typical.

I gave you a chance to spread your bullshit, but frankly, you are kind of boring now.

Slavery was wrong, everyone at the time knew it was wrong. They did it anyway.

 

[Fueri]

Sure, Joey. Your "facts" were wrong as usual, leaving you no rebuttal, so you respond with this non-response. Typical.

I gave you a chance to spread your bullshit, but frankly, you are kind of boring now.

Slavery was wrong, everyone at the time knew it was wrong. They did it anyway.

Except for the fact that it wasn't outlawed in any of europe, much less most of it, in 1776, and wouldn't be in the UK for another 57 years and 87 years here . You were flat wrong.

In the future let's pass judgement on people today for something common that will be illegal 50-85 years from now. Makes perfect sense.

 

[martybegan]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

Because you posited an ass-ertion, that's why.

OP did the same thing. He can't prove his either.

Sic semper sweeping generalizations. They're a worthless crutch for those who can't target an argument.

As usual Pogo evades the crux of the post for semantics.

As usual Pogo shoots the post out of the air for its fallaciousnessitude.

Plop.

No, as usual Pogo goes off on tangents then declares "victory"

What a fucking moron you are.

 

[JoeB131]

Except for the fact that it wasn't outlawed in any of europe,

Are you still babbling?

There was no need to outlaw it in Europe, because they weren't bringing slaves to europe. At the time Thomas Jefferson brought Sally Hemmings to France, it was already illegal in France. She could have walked any time if she knew what her rights were. (Lucky for Tommy she didn't speak French and he could keep raping her.)

No, as usual Pogo goes off on tangents then declares "victory"

What a fucking moron you are.

yet he's spanking you...

 

[martybegan]

Except for the fact that it wasn't outlawed in any of europe,

Are you still babbling?

There was no need to outlaw it in Europe, because they weren't bringing slaves to europe. At the time Thomas Jefferson brought Sally Hemmings to France, it was already illegal in France. She could have walked any time if she knew what her rights were. (Lucky for Tommy she didn't speak French and he could keep raping her.)

No, as usual Pogo goes off on tangents then declares "victory"

What a fucking moron you are.

yet he's spanking you...

Bullshit, you dumb cocksucker.

 

[Pogo]

We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Is it now.

Linkie winkie?

Why do you need a link? Just google Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln statue and you will see what is going on.

Defacement, calls for removal, actual removal, either by mob or by cowardly local politicians.

Because you posited an ass-ertion, that's why.

OP did the same thing. He can't prove his either.

Sic semper sweeping generalizations. They're a worthless crutch for those who can't target an argument.

As usual Pogo evades the crux of the post for semantics.

As usual Pogo shoots the post out of the air for its fallaciousnessitude.

Plop.

Fixed it for ya. Complete with appropriate sound effects.

No, as usual Pogo goes off on tangents then declares "victory"

What a fucking moron you are.

As usual, not being content with the single (okay, double) fallacy of sweeping generalization based on vague impressions his teevee ordered him to slobber over yet that he can't itemize, he doubles (okay, triples) down with an ad hom as well. Just in case there was any doubt as to his not having had an argument.

As predictable as it is tedious.

 

[Fueri]

Except for the fact that it wasn't outlawed in any of europe,

Are you still babbling?

There was no need to outlaw it in Europe, because they weren't bringing slaves to europe. At the time Thomas Jefferson brought Sally Hemmings to France, it was already illegal in France. She could have walked any time if she knew what her rights were. (Lucky for Tommy she didn't speak French and he could keep raping her.)

No, as usual Pogo goes off on tangents then declares "victory"

What a fucking moron you are.

yet he's spanking you...

And yet the fact that it was outlawed in Europoe formed the basis for your point, seemingly that the founders here should have been following some European standard that didn't actually exist, except in your own mind, and not doing so left them as outliers of some kind.

Now, of course, that doesn't matter, basically because if it's not true your point falls apart which, of course, it does.

Maybe the British colonies should have taken the lead here, except for the fact that it doesn't typically work that way.

Britain was the global leader in the slave trade at the time you were saying it was outlawed in most of Europe and and of course they brought it to their colonies here. There was not some broad consensus that it should be outlawed at that time or that wouldn't have been the case.