Skip to comments.
Liberty Bell's new home will address slavery
Philadelphia Inquirer ^
| May 14, 2002
| Stephen Salisbury
Posted on 05/14/2002 1:56:51 PM PDT by mondonico
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
1
posted on
05/14/2002 1:56:51 PM PDT
by
mondonico
To: mondonico
"Founding father" replaced with "slave owner". Beautiful.
2
posted on
05/14/2002 2:02:05 PM PDT
by
billybudd
To: rdb3; Khepera; elwoodp; maknight; South40; condolinda; mafree; trueblackman; FRlurker...
Black conservative pingIf you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know.
3
posted on
05/14/2002 2:03:40 PM PDT
by
mhking
To: mondonico
I addressed this ridiculous posture in the essay that I posted yesterday,
The Big Truth.
In my opinion, the idea that suddenly, 137 years after slavery ended in America, it has become an issue where our justly beloved First President housed his household servants, while he was in Philadelphia, is nothing but a contrived attempt at creating a controversy, designed to undermine American images with the historically illiterate. This sort of thing has become all too common since Bill Clinton was elected President. I realize that we are supposed to be done with Clinton's policies, but this sure reeks of them. I would hope that the new Administration would reverse this decision of the Park Service.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
4
posted on
05/14/2002 2:16:49 PM PDT
by
Ohioan
To: Ohioan
I would hope that the new Administration would reverse this decision of the Park Service. I would hope you don't hold your breath waiting, or that resounding thud we'll here, will be your head bouncing off your keyboard. Anything these scum can do to erase our heritage, they're willing to do. Out with the old in with the old, as far as administrations are concerned. This might become apparent to people when the next repub is elected and this crap continues. I want hold my breath on that one. Blackbird.
To: mondonico
"It is clear this is a compelling story that visitors are interested in," Reidenbach said. Unless you've just been beamed from Planet X, you've already heard this "compelling" story ad nausea!
They should add a postscript to this "compelling" story on how, a hundred years after slavery ended, the liberals covertly began to enslave the heirs of former slaves through their myriad of social programs.
To: mondonico
Slavery is an important thing to remember and there are many places where it is appropriate to address it in context. But now every National Park, every museum, every historic site, every battlefield MUST re-interpret to have a slavery focus.
If this continues, those places that actually have an appropriate slavery focus will just be another noise. The best way to make the public ignore something is stick it in their face everywhere where its not really historically meaningful.
7
posted on
05/14/2002 2:57:42 PM PDT
by
Arkinsaw
To: BlackbirdSST
So they should not mention that Washington owned slaves, and at the same time he was declaring himself and others independent of England he still felt himself (as did Jefferson) empowered by God to own their fellow man?
I say Hell yes they should let people know about this. It just goes to show that times change.
If you try to make Washington, Jefferson (or Jeff Davis and Lincoln for that matter) into something they are not, or something more than they are, you are guilty of a lie or a sin of omission.
Obviously, slavery is not the most important issue on the site of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Buy when you think that less than 90 years later the Southern States would try to dissolve the Union set there over that very issue, it becomes an interesting footnote.
8
posted on
05/14/2002 3:21:22 PM PDT
by
Vladiator
To: mondonico
Wasn't Washington also a Meat-Eater. I want his meat eating brought to the forefront. He was also a sock wearer, hand washer, wig wearing founding father and this needs to be exposed!
To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
Wasn't Washington also a Meat-Eater. I want his meat eating brought to the forefront. He was also a sock wearer, hand washer, wig wearing founding father and this needs to be exposed! Hey, he had dentures, too. Why haven't we heard more about this? I demand a display of modern prosthetic dentistry compared to that of GW's day. The discrepancy has gone unreported for too long.
Maybe folks whose ancestors suffered from wearing wooden dentures should get reparations.
10
posted on
05/14/2002 3:59:24 PM PDT
by
nepdap
Franklin and the Adamses never owned anyone. What I'd like to see would be a multiculti exhibit on slavery, starting with the Africans selling each other to the Muslims.
To: Ohioan;jackliberty
"The entire Liberty Bell Center is expected to cost about $12.6 million." I wonder how much of this "compelling history" became more compelling to the activist historians when government $$$ came flowing into the area.
12
posted on
05/14/2002 4:10:23 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: nepdap
Only if they suffered from termites (or lead poisoning in the case of painted teeth).
13
posted on
05/14/2002 4:12:29 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: mondonico
I got no problem with this. He did have slaves, after all.
14
posted on
05/14/2002 4:16:16 PM PDT
by
Sloth
To: mondonico
Another "let's teach all sides" issue:
In Texas: remembering the Alamo differently
When kids can actually remember the basics (names, dates, places) then maybe add layers to the discussion. The communists wanted American school children to be taught such aspects to diminish their national pride. If the founding fathers weren't good people, then maybe the government they established isn't good for all people.
15
posted on
05/14/2002 4:21:01 PM PDT
by
weegee
To: Vladiator
In bringing his personal household servants with him to Philadelphia, Washington was not making any kind of a statement on the theory of slavery, or anything involved with it. He brought those he was comfortable working with--those whom he trusted. That the labor system was not one where they were paid a wage may be significant in a discussion of labor conditions then and now, but it has little other relevance. For that matter, many Americans in that era would have gladly volunteered to serve General Washington for free. Again, these were people he trusted. People he freed ten years later.
Does anyone make a point as to the freedom of the servants Richard The Lion Hearted took on the Third Crusade? How about the freedom of the servants that Charlemagne took to the Pyranees. Slavery was not seen primarily as a moral issue in 1789. Bondage in one form or another was an accepted part of the social structure going back to Biblical times.
The sole reason for this little controversy is to make Washington look less appealing to the historically illiterate, who do not understand the pre-industrial labor systems. In an era when absolutely no one is advocating returning to such systems, it is pure agitation, and nothing else.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
16
posted on
05/14/2002 4:53:09 PM PDT
by
Ohioan
To: Ohioan
So... when going to see the Liberty Bell, instead of being happy and proud of my country, which did so much to create a place where human freedom could flourish... I will be confronted with this guilt-provoking claptrap. Washington is no more to be blamed for having slaves in his day and age as he is to be blamed for not having proper refrigeration equipment. "Freedom" was a new concept -- it was just being explored and invented -- and Washington was helping invent it. He was a creature of his age -- as we all are. Someday, people in the future will be just as appalled at some aspect of our lives as we are of this aspect of our ancestors' -- and it won't be what we expect! I am sick of this 'hate-America' stuff. It is killing us.
17
posted on
05/14/2002 5:25:01 PM PDT
by
Jerez
To: mhking
Oh, well. Happy to be an American any way.
18
posted on
05/14/2002 5:43:19 PM PDT
by
rdb3
To: mhking
Thanks for the ping.
Anyone knows that slavery existed at the time of our nation's founding. How we interpret that is up to each of us. I think it's better to focus on the ideal, knowing that the reality for some was different, and then note how far things have come today.
19
posted on
05/14/2002 11:16:47 PM PDT
by
mafree
To: mondonico
Don't you people know anything. There were never any slaves in the North at all, slavery was 100% isolated to the South so the premise of this story is flawed. The North is blameless.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson