NY Times Wins Pulitzer for Saying American Revolution Was Over Slavery

[Weatherman2020]

Because we knew in 1776 that the British Empire would ban slavery in 1832.

Pulitzer Prize to New York Times Essay Falsely Claiming American Revolution Was Fought to Preserve Slavery

Historians were outraged by Hannah-Jones's false claim, which the Times was forced to correct. She won the Pulitzer anyway.

www.breitbart.com

 

[daveman]

 

[cnm]

When everyone knows it was because the settlers wanted to break the treaties with the Iroquois the British insisted be upheld, so their land could be taken. This after the British had defeated the French, thereby opening up the opportunity of expansion, the cost of which the settlers didn't want to contribute towards.

MAGA!

 

[rightwinger]

I thought they won the Noble Prize for Literature

That is what Trump says

 

[rightwinger]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

 

[Weatherman2020]

NY Times still has the Pulitzer for reporting that Stalin was not conducting mass murder.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I thought they won the Noble Prize for Literature

That is what Trump says

TDS

 

[Weatherman2020]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

If the British had not brought slavery to America there’d be no slaves. If nobody had mixed peanut butter and chocolate there’d be no Reese’s.

 

[Weatherman2020]

When everyone knows it was because the settlers wanted to break the treaties with the Iroquois the British insisted be upheld, so their land could be taken. This after the British had defeated the French, thereby opening up the opportunity of expansion, the cost of which the settlers didn't want to contribute towards.

MAGA!

Settlers?

 

[cnm]

Settlers?

Yeah, the British settlers.

 

[IM2]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

If the British had not brought slavery to America there’d be no slaves. If nobody had mixed peanut butter and chocolate there’d be no Reese’s.

If the british had not come here, you would not be here and the native americans would be in contriol of their lands.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

If the British had not brought slavery to America there’d be no slaves. If nobody had mixed peanut butter and chocolate there’d be no Reese’s.

If the british had not come here, you would not be here and the native americans would be in contriol of their lands.

My Cherokee wife would be here, and you’d be running from Cheetahs.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

If the British had not brought slavery to America there’d be no slaves. If nobody had mixed peanut butter and chocolate there’d be no Reese’s.

If the british had not come here, you would not be here and the native americans would be in contriol of their lands.

What?? No Spanish. No French? No Dutch?

Gads you really are that ignorant.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Forget about the Pulitzer and George Soros and NYTimes history. Has anybody read the article in question? Not the Breitbart story but the actual Nicole Hannah-Jones essay?

It is true that the American colonists strongly desired to expand Westward into Indian lands, against the desire of the English Royal government (and the French). It is also true that chattel slavery in the overseas British Empire was abolished three decades before it was abolished in the U.S.A., and before “King Cotton” became the main export of the country. During the bloodiest period of the French Revolution just a few years after the U.S. Constitution was written (with its 3/5th Compromise giving slave-owning states extra voting power), slavery was also formally abolished throughout the overseas French Empire, only to be legally re-established after Robespierre fell, especially under Napoleon. In Mexico I think it was formally abolished in 1829, which should remind us what East Texas Anglo-Americans and later the U.S. government and finally the Confederacy wanted to re-introduce there.

The American Revolution was NOT a “counter-revolution,” NOT reactionary — but it sure might have seemed that way if you were an American Indian or a black slave who opted to seek freedom by fighting on the British side during the American Revolution or during the War of 1812. The defense of slavery and extension of slavery were important and “natural” goals for many American slave owners. Yet after the Revolution, with its exciting Enlightened talk of “Liberty” and “natural rights of man,” slavery was gradually made illegal in several Northern States, and the “peculiar institution“ was banished (for awhile) in all the Northwest Territories. So this is a complex issue.

 

[Polishprince]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

The British didn't abolish slavery in their colonies in Kenya until 1962, so why do you think they would have abolished it here in 1833?

 

[OldLady]

When everyone knows it was because the settlers wanted to break the treaties with the Iroquois the British insisted be upheld, so their land could be taken. This after the British had defeated the French, thereby opening up the opportunity of expansion, the cost of which the settlers didn't want to contribute towards.

MAGA!

I thought it started over money--Boston businessmen who had been smuggling goods in for years to avoid taxes were suddenly not going to be ignored anymore, and they were PISSED. Agitators with self interest at heart. Kinda like the anti-lockdown protestors. Quote some laws, some natural rights philosophy and voila!!! Makes you sound a lot better than saying "Hey!! I had a good deal going here !!!"

 

[MisterBeale]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

If the British had not brought slavery to America there’d be no slaves. If nobody had mixed peanut butter and chocolate there’d be no Reese’s.

If the british had not come here, you would not be here and the native americans would be in contriol of their lands.

If it wasn't the British, it would have been the French. If it weren't the French, it would've been the Spanish. If it weren't the Spanish, it would've been the Dutch. If it weren't the Dutch, it would've been the Russians. If it weren't the Russians, eventually, the Germans would've gotten around to it.

You really need to study how anthropology and civilization work.

Hell, given enough time, and left to their own devices, the Aztec or the Iroquois would have colonized Africa, or if the Songhai Empire hadn't been invaded by the Moroccans, they might have done the same to the new world. Who can say. No civilization is inherently moral when it comes to expansion.

 

[cnm]

I thought it started over money--Boston businessmen who had been smuggling goods in for years to avoid taxes were suddenly not going to be ignored anymore, and they were PISSED.

Because reduced levies/prices were going to put them out of business as there was now not enough profit in smuggling. Sure, that's one contributing aspect. The levies were also to pay for the cost of the French wars, in which the settlers saw no point, seeing the wars had been won. It was always about land and money. Well wrapped in liberty, of course.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

The British didn't abolish slavery in their colonies in Kenya until 1962, so why do you think they would have abolished it here in 1833?

Link? This 1962 date is almost certainly not true, and would have been all but irrelevant in any case, since slave trading had been profoundly disrupted by the British much earlier, as they took over all maritime routes in the area.

Kenya by 1962 was becoming independent. Tribal conflicts, decolonization/independence movement conflicts, religious conflicts, Indian/European/African political conflicts — these predominated. The British could no longer manage everything. The 30,000 whites living in Kenya, many retired soldiers and their families, were losing out, even though Britain had won its war against the “Mau-Mau.” Old conflicts between northern nomadic and coastal trading areas (with once-powerful Muslim groups now no longer able to slave raid) and new militarily trained elites of “Christianized” inland Bantu/Nilotic peoples — these conflicts went back to before British rule, and left deep legacies. But the inland elites were winning independence and basic control of the new state. Today of course there are still “jihadi terror groups” in the bush that sometimes sweep into villages or towns to steal and massacre and kidnap girls and children — but these are criminal groups already completely illegal.

The point about whether Britain, had it somehow crushed the American Revolution and hung George Washington, would have also had the strength and willingness to abolish slavery in the U.S. by 1833 — this is a good but hard-to-answer question.

 

[rightwinger]

Without the American Revolution, Slavery would have ended in this country by 1833

The British didn't abolish slavery in their colonies in Kenya until 1962, so why do you think they would have abolished it here in 1833?

Once again, you make up your own history as it suits you