Posted on 02/07/2020 6:12:19 AM PST by Enlightened1
The New York Times’ 1619 Project — a curriculum that makes the fantastical claim that a primary cause of the Revolutionary War was the colonists’ desire to protect slavery — has been adopted in 3,500 classrooms across all 50 states.
For this reason, some of the nation’s most renowned historians have called for The Times to correct this and other factual errors.
The Pulitzer Center, which is partnering with The Times to promote The 1619 Project, recounted in its 2019 annual report, “Good journalism, innovative educational resources, and deep community engagement are absolutely essential to bridging the divisions that threaten to rip our democracy apart. It is this belief that has driven the Pulitzer Center for the last 14 years.”
Nikole Hannah-Jones, The Times’ lead writer on the project, argued in her introductory essay to it, “The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that ‘all men are created equal’ and ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’
“But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.”
Hannah-Jones went on to contend “that the year 1619 is as important to the American story as 1776.”
That was the year, she explained, that British colonists in Jamestown purchased 20 to 30 enslaved Africans.
“Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery,” Hannah-Jones wrote.
The reporter is honest enough to admit that slavery in America predated the nation’s founding by over 150 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournal.com ...
.
“The Revolution was sparked by New Englanders, who at the time couldn’t have cared less about slavery.”
Hardly. The Revolution was happening all over the Colonies.
Patrick Henry gave his Liberty or Death speech to the Second Virginia Convention a full month before fighting broke out at Lexington and Concord.
The Gunpowder Plot occurred in Williamsburg at the same time that fighting erupted up north. The Virginia militia forced the Royal governor to flee to a warship in the James.
London had already issued two emancipation proclamations that would have freed Washington’s slaves years before that.
Not in our private academy. We even had an inter-school debate competition and all the public/black schools kept harping the slavery crap. My classmates annihilated them with facts. And they cant call us racists because the debate team were mostly Asian kids.
Our teachers were both surprised and disgusted these leftard teachers from the other schools brainwashed their kids to think like this.
Such a proclamation made after the path toward revolution began hardly addresses causation, does it?
This is just a damn lie, fake history. At the time of the Revolution slavery was legal throughout the British Empire and would remain so for another 50 years (except in Great Britain proper).
Those proclamations only freed slaves willing to fight for the British. It didn’t end slavery.
So you have a source fife that info?
“Off your meds, huh dude? Slavery was abolished in the North in 1804. You Rebs went to war to preserve it.”
Connecticut:
“Emancipation bills were rejected by the Connecticut Legislature in 1777, 1779, and 1780. Connecticut lawmakers did, however, in 1774 pass a law to halt the importation of slaves (”whereas the increase of slaves in this Colony is injurious to the poor and inconvenient ....”).
“As in other Northern states, gradual emancipation freed no slaves at once. It simply set up slavery for a long-term natural death. Connecticut finally abolished slavery entirely in 1848. The 1800 census counted 951 Connecticut slaves; the number diminished thereafter to 25 in 1830, but then inexplicably rose to 54 in the 1840 census. After that, slaves were no longer counted in censuses for the northern states.”
http://slavenorth.com/connecticut.htm
Rhode Island:
“During the Revolution, Quaker abolitionists and the powerful Newport shipping interest clashed over slavery. In February 1784 the Legislature passed a compromise measure for gradual emancipation. All children of slaves born after March 1 were to be “apprentices,” the girls to become free at 18, the boys at 21. As with other Northern instances of gradual emancipation, this gave slaveowners many years of service to recoup the cost of raising the children.
“No slaves were emancipated outright. The 1800 census listed 384 slaves, and the number fell gradually to 5 in 1840, after which slaves were no longer counted in the censuses for the state. And, in an essential element of the 1784 compromise, the right of Rhode Island ship-owners to participate in the foreign slave trade was undisturbed.
“Legislation against slave-trading proved difficult to enforce in Rhode Island. John Brown, a merchant, state representative, and powerful slaveholder, was tried in 1796 for violating the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794, which prohibited ships destined to transport slaves to any foreign country from outfitting in American ports. He was found not guilty.
“As was the case throughout the North, Rhode Island, having ended slavery, also sought to make it difficult for blacks to remain in the state or move there. In the early 19th century, Rhode Island towns especially turned to the old New England custom of “warning out” strangers to purify themselves racially. The custom continued to have as a stated goal the removal of poor and undesirable strangers from a community. But blacks were increasingly its targets, out of proportion to their numbers and without regard to whether they were long-term residents or not.
http://slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm
Pennsylvania:
“The law for gradual emancipation in Pennsylvania passed on February 1780, and that’s when the Mason-Dixon line began to acquire its metaphoric meaning as the boundary between North and South. But the law was no proclamation of emancipation. It was deeply conservative. The 6,000 or so Pennsylvania slaves in 1780 stayed slaves. Even those born a few days before the passage of the act had to wait 28 years before the law set them free. This allowed their masters to recoup the cost of raising them.
The abolition bill was made more restrictive during the debates over it — it originally freed daughters of slave women at 18, sons at 21. By the time it passed, it was upped to a flat 28. That meant it was possible for a Pennsylvania slave’s daughter born in February 1780 to live her life in bondage, and if she had a child at 40, the child would remain a slave until 1848. There’s no record of this happening, but the “emancipation” law allowed it. It was, as the title of one article has it, “philanthropy at bargain prices.”
The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for “slaves.”
http://slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm
Delaware:
“Delaware had, proportionally, the largest free black population of any state. This was not merely a statistical abstraction, but it was known and commented upon by the people in Delaware at the time, as in the Wilmington newspaper of 1850 that noted that Delaware “has more free colored in proportion to its population than any state in the Union.”
“White employers relied on free blacks for labor, and, like Maryland, Delaware took a coercive stance toward its free black population. An 1849 law threatened to sell free blacks into servitude for a year if they were “idle and poor” and remained unemployed. Blacks had been barred from state-aided schools as far back as 1821. In 1832, not long after Nat Turner’s rebellion, the General Assembly began to pass “black codes” to control the lives and activities of freedmen. Soon these harsh rules made Delaware “the least hospitable place in the Union for freedmen prior to the Civil War.”The result was a migration of Delaware blacks northward in the 1850s.
“An attempt to abolish slavery in the new state constitution in 1792 failed. Bills to abolish slavery were introduced in the General Assembly in 1796 and ‘97. An attempt at gradual emancipation in 1803 was killed by the speaker of the state House of Representatives, who cast the tiebreaking vote. Further attempts were made, but the abolition bills generally were smothered or starved in parliamentary procedure. By this time, the pattern had been established of anti-slavery New Castle County in the north vs. pro-slavery Sussex County in the south.
“An 1845 bill for gradual abolition was “indefinitely postponed,” but in 1847 a gradual emancipation bill that would have freed all African-Americans born into slavery after 1850 made it out of committee, with a recommendation of approval on economic grounds. Industrial Wilmington was eager to keep up with its bigger rivals, and the Northern political rhetoric of the times held that free laboring men, working to better their condition in factories or on farms, were the key to a region’s prosperity. The committee report warned that “the carelessness, slovenly and unproductive husbandry visible in some parts of our state, undoubtedly result mainly from the habit of depending on slave labor. It is no longer a disputable question that slave labor impoverishes, while free labor enriches people.”
“The House passed the bill, by a vote of 12 to 8 (this is Delaware, remember: things happen on a very small scale). But it was tabled in the state Senate by one vote. Ironically, the deciding vote against it was cast by a senator who probably lived in Pennsylvania, in an area where the Mason-Dixon survey had left the boundary doubtful: a small spike of land that technically belonged to Pennsylvania but traditionally had been administered by Delaware.
http://slavenorth.com/delaware.htm
It was Great Britain that brought the slavery in North America in 1619 on record. This was before the current United States came into existence in 1787. That was 68 years after 1619!
Furthermore, this was not a race thing, but a “class” thing. The British purchased slaves from Africans and Asians who happened to be of the same skin pigment as their slaves. Both Africa and Asia had slaves dating back to 5,000 B.C. For example, Moses and the slaves in Egypt. It was not just in Egypt too.
The Lies of the New York Times’ 1619 Project continue to be spread by liberals.
A few months ago, I started posting this little historical exercise about Slavery in pre America:
Slavery was, not yet a reality, even in any British Royal American Colonies by 1619.
1619: The year, the first Endentured Africans, not slaves, were brought to Jamestown, is drilled into students’ memories, but overemphasizing this date distorts history!
1619: First Africans:
In August 1619 “20/odd Negroes” arrived on the Dutch Man-of-War ship at Jamestown colony. This is the earliest record of Black people in colonial America.[38] These colonists were freemen and indentured servants.[39][40][41][42] At this time the slave trade between Africa and the English colonies had not yet been established.
Records from 1623 and 1624 listed the African inhabitants of the colony as servants, not slaves.
In the case of William Tucker, the first Black person born in the colonies, freedom was his birthright.[43] He was son of “Antony and Isabell”, a married couple from Angola who worked as indentured servants for Captain William Tucker whom he was named after.
Yet, court records show that at least one African had been declared a slave by 1640; John Punch. He was an indentured servant who ran away along with two White indentured servants and he was sentenced by the governing council to lifelong servitude. This action is what officially marked the institution of slavery in Jamestown and the future United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jamestown,_Virginia_(1607–99)#1619:_First_Africans
Jamestown was not an American colony nor even a British Colony at that time, 1619.
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery
Before going to the link above, everyone, ask yourself a simple question:
In what year did the former British/American Colonies, become America/the USA and recognized by the world powers as America.
Hint, It was not in 1619.
It was 1783! America’s independence was recognized by Britain in 1783.
The Emancipation Proclamation was in 1863, 80 years after we became a recognized country.
This year, 2020, will make freedom from Slavery/1863, for 157 years in America, the USA. Thanks to the The Emancipation Proclamation being declared in 1863.
The US had legal slavery for 80 years! Liberal liars scream “400 years” of slavery, and it is a complete lie.
At this point, blacks in today’s America, have been free for much longer than their ancestors were slaves! (nearly twice as long).
*How many union soldiers died to free the Slaves: - Quora:
https://www.quora.com/How-many-union-soldiers-died
*Approximately 110,000 Union Soldiers died due to battle-related causes during the Civil War. Around 250,000 died of disease. Yes, you were more likely to die of illness later than on the battlefield. The deadliest battle for both sides was the infamous Battle of Gettysburg, totaling more than 50,000 casualties.
At least 360,000 Union soldiers died from battle causes or illnesses linked to their service in the Civil War. More suffered from physical and mental wounds for most of their lives post Civil War.
Women born just before, during and after the Civil War in the battleground states often died in their 20’s to 30’s. My Dad’s mother and one of her sisters died in their late 20’s. Women in their families before and decades after the civil war lived into their late 70’s to 80’s.
Lincoln: The Founders did not make America racist or slaver. They inherited it that way!
PGA Weblog ^
Posted on 9/2/2019, 4:35:14 PM by ProgressingAmerica
Abraham Lincoln:
Judge Douglas asks you, “Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?” In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time.
When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood.
More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?
The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.
Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the “Great Emancipator” was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3776122/posts
Slavery was already locked out of the territories. It was also very impractical in the territories anyways.
But keeping slavery out of the territories would have more practical and material consequences. It would drive down the demand for slaves, the price of slaves, their resale value and the wealth of slaveowners
No it wouldn't, because there was no practical use for slaves in the territories. I've covered this point many times. Rather than go to the trouble again, i'll just tell you to look at a modern Cotton growing map, and then take away the areas that require modern irrigation to work.
There was no guarantee that such an amendment would be ratified either. In the North, the amendment would have caused great controversy and a split in the Republican Party.
I've covered this too. Five Northern states did ratify it, and Seward promised New York would do so as well. With 16 slave states, plus the five Northern states that had already ratified it, plus New York, (and face it, if New York supported it, it's little satellite states would too.) it only lacked three more states to pass.
If they thought it would have worked, that amendment would have passed.
The Confederate Constitution forbade any state from abolishing slavery. If you were a slave owner, which approach would be more likely to make you feel that your claim to your human property was unassailable?
Am more interested in knowing what percentage of the voting population these people represented. I perceive it to be a very tiny percentage.
My point is that slavery was not threatened, and the Union would continue practicing legal slavery for decades more if the South had remained.
Links are included in my post #60:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3814426/posts?page=60#60
Lord Dunmore’s 1775 proclamation and the 1779 Philipsburg proclamation.
I have suggested that the Constitution as it existed in 1860 nowhere prohibited State secession (obviously, many disagree ;^). Assuming for the sake of argument that I am correct (let's argue that point elsewhere, on a future occassion), an important question arises:
Is motivation relevant to federal approval or disapproval, of an individual's (or State's) exercise of a constitutional right?
For example, if you choose to vote, does the reason matter? If a State lawfully imposes taxes, does the reason matter?
In America today, it seems to be progressives (more often than conservatives) who attempt to judge the legality of actions based on their impression(s) of motivation. If they think something should be done "for the children", for example, then just about anything goes. But if they decide you're a "racist", or "homophobe" (or MAGA-hat-wearing-deplorable ;^), then say goodbye to your 1st Amendment (and other) rights - nothing you say or do is acceptable to them (even apologies, as we've seen on those occassions when various RINOs attempted it).
"A taste of things to come" indeed...
Wrong. Apparently you never bothered to read Philipsburg (Clinton). Only Dunmore's required them to fight.
"John Murray, Earl of Dunmore, Virginia's last royal governor, attempted to do the same thing in November 1775 when he issued a proclamation that granted freedom to any rebel-owned slave who would take up arms for the King."
"Clinton's carefully worded proclamation went much further. Although not once mentioning the word "slave," Clinton "most strictly forbid any Person to sell or claim Right over any NEGROE, the property of a Rebel, who may take Refuge with any part" of the British army. Furthermore, he promised "to every NEGROE Who shall desert the Rebel Standard, full Security to follow within these Lines, any Occupation which he shall think proper."
"In other words, once a slave reached British lines anywhere in North America, his or her status as property ended; no one could claim that he or she belonged to someone else. Also, former slaves did not have to fight in the army to gain freedom; they could do whatever they chose to do. And as British commander-in-chief in America, Clinton's order applied to the entire country as official policy.
But I don't have to defend my ancestors because they weren't here at the time. That's why I can be more objective about what happened.
The North should have left the South alone. 750,000 people didn't need to die. Everything would have resolved itself without bloodshed if given enough time.
Someone who ended up agreeing with that position was a Union combat officer named Charles Francis Adams Jr.
Who in addition to being a soldier and a scholar was also the grandson and g-grandson of the two Presidents from Massachusetts. You can find his reasoning in his essay/speech "Shall Cromwell Have A Statue?"
“Such a proclamation made after the path toward revolution began hardly addresses causation, does it?”
Arguing “causation” isn’t going to help you any. See if you can figure out who wrote this famous letter to Horace Greeley. And what it teaches you about his motive for going to war:
“I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.
The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.”
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.
If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.
If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.
I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
I guess some freed slaves were more equal than others.
What the hell does Abraham Lincoln have to do with the 1619 Project saying the American Revolution was designed to preserve slavery?
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.