"Slavery was embraced as lawful by all thirteen original states."You keep using that word embraced when it has no place here. The fact that states like Pennsylvania tried before Independence to do something about the slavery problem only to be stonewalled by the empire, then pretty much immediately got to the business and abolished(gradually) slavery afterwards is by itself enough to permanently destroy the use of this word.
Slavery was legal in all 13 original states. Pennsylvania freely joined a slave union. Learn to deal with it. The mysterious "empire" didn't do that. The unanimous ratification of the States did that. You watch too much Star Wars. Darth Vader does not appear in this movie.
Slavery was default because it was enforced by the empire.
Overt discrimination against Blacks, Chinese, and Indians was official United States Government policy. Lincoln called Brown people from Mexico mongrels.
Lincoln Speech at Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854, CW 2:281
In the course of his reply, Senator Douglas remarked, in substance, that he had always considered this government was made for the white people and not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.
Gideon Welles Diary, Vol. 1, pp. 150-151
As early as May, 1861, a great pressure was made upon me to enter into a coal contract with this company. The President was earnest in the matter; wished to send the negroes out of the country. Smith, with the Thompsons, urged and stimulated him, and they were as importunate with me as the President. I spent two or three hours on different days looking over the papers, — titles, maps, reports, and evidence, — and came to the conclusion that there was fraud and cheat in the affair. It appeared to be a swindling speculation. Told the President I had no confidence in it, and asked to be released from its further consideration. The papers were then referred to Smith to investigate and report. After a month or two he reported strongly in favor of the scheme, and advised that the Navy Department should make an immediate contract for coal before foreign governments got hold of it. Mr. Toucey had investigated it. Commodore Engle had been sent out to examine the country and especially in relation to coal. The President was quite earnest in its favor, but, satisfied myself it was a job, I objected and desired to be excused from any participation in it. Two or three times it has been revived, but I have crowded off action. Chase gave me assistance on one occasion, and the scheme was dropped until this question of deporting colored persons came up, when Smith again brought forward Thompson's Chiriqui Grant. He made a skillful and taking report, embracing both coal and negroes. Each was to assist the other. The negroes were to be transported to Chiriqui to mine coal for the Navy, and the Secretary of the Navy was to make an immediate advance of $50,000 for coal not yet mined, — nor laborers obtained to mine it, nor any satisfactory information or proof that there was decent coal to be mined.
Gideon Welles Diary, Vol. 1, page 152
On Tuesday last the President brought forward the subject and desired the members of the Cabinet to each take it into serious consideration. He thought a treaty could be made to advantage, and territory secured to which the negroes could be sent. Thought it essential to provide an asylum for a race which we had emancipated, but which could never be recognized or admitted to be our equals. Several governments had signified their willingness to receive them. Mr. Seward said some were willing to take them without expense to us.Mr. Blair made a long argumentative statement in favor of deportation. It would be necessary to rid the country of its black population, and some place must be found for them. He is strongly for deportation, has given the subject much thought, but yet seems to have no matured system which he can recommend. Mr. Bates was for compulsory deportation. The negro would not, he said, go voluntarily, had great local attachments but no enterprise or persistency.
Allen T. Rice, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time, New York, 1888, pg 61
Few subjects have been more debated and less understood than the Proclamation of Emancipation. Mr. Lincoln himself opposed to the measure, and when he very reluctantly issued his preliminary proclamation in Septermber 1862, he wished it distinctly understood that the deportation of the slaves was, in his mind, inseparably connected with the policy. Like Mr. Clay and other prominent leaders of the old Whig party, he believed in colonization, and that the separation of the two races was necessary to the welfare of both. He was at that time pressing upon the attention of Congress a scheme of colonization in Chiriqui, in Central America, which Senator Pomoroy espoused with great zeal, and in which he had the favor of a majority of the Cabinet, including Secretary Smith, who warmly endorsed the project.
In July 1853, Rev. James Mitchell of Indiana desired to organize the state of Illinois for the cause of colonization. In an interview published in the St. Louis Daily Globe Democrat, August 26, 1896, Mitchell told of how a Presbyterian pastor recommended a local man to help him organize Illinois for the American Colonization Society. The pastor recommended Abraham Lincoln.
It would appear that Mitchell was quite successful in recruiting Abraham Lincoln to the cause. On August 30, 1853, the Illinois State Register said that Lincoln would speak that night on “colonization” at the First Presbyterian Church. Lincoln became one of the founding members of the Illinois State Colonization Society and one of its 11 managers.
https://archive.org/details/ASPC0001878200
Note the following from Page 4:
Being grateful for the positions you have assumed, and the recommendations you have made, we herein respectfully submit a few reflections intended to sustain (thought feeble may be the effort) the policy proposed, and asking that, so long as God grants you place and power at the head of this great nation, you will continue to this subject the care its magnitude merits and our national dangers demand.
James Mitchell refers to the positions Lincoln had assumed, and he refers to the recommendations made by Lincoln, and identifies his own effort as one intended to sustain the Lincoln policy proposed. Being well-known to Abraham Lincoln, James Mitchell was quickly hired and made part of the administration. Mitchell’s profound reflections were seen to have such merit as to warrant being turned into a pamphlet with copies produced by the Government Printing Office. The below example of the Lincoln position on race was submitted to Lincoln by that James Mitchell. Mitchell was promptly appointed as Commissioner of [Black] Emigration. The letter of Mitchell was made into a pamphlet and copies were printed by the Government Printing Office (GPO) at taxpayer expense. Mitchell remained in the administration until Lincoln’s death. He was removed by Andrew Johnson. However, this is what was written to sustain the positions, recommendations, and policies proposed by Lincoln.
From page 25:
It further suggests that our legislation should cover the wants and well-being of both races, and that statesmen should consider, first, the good of the white race, then, the good and well-being of the black; making at least as liberal appropriations for the colonization of the Indian, upon whom millions on millions have been expended with but imperfect success in the cause of civilization, whilst the slender means of the friends of the African civilization have produced lasting results. Some affect to fear that the man of color will not remove to a separate locality. It is not to be expected that a race, which has hardly attained a mental majority, will rise in a day to the stature of the men who found empires, build cities, and lay the ground work of civil institutions like ours; nor should they be expected to do this unaided and alone. They should receive the kind attention, direction, and aid of those who understand such things; nor will the world condemn a gentle pressure in the forward course to overcome the natural inertia of masses long used to the driver’s will and rod. Let us do justice in the provision we make for their future comfort, and surely they will do justice to our distracted Republic. If they should fail to do this, there would then be more propriety in weighing the requirement of some to remove without consultation, but not till then. The more intelligent men of color can now see the necessity that rests upon us, and they will aid us in this work. We know that there is a growing sentiment in the country which considered the removal of the freed man, without consulting him, “a moral and military necessity” — as a measure necessary to the purity of public morals and the peace of the country; and this unhappy war of white man with white man, about the condition of the black, will multiply this sentiment. But we cannot go further now than suggesting, that the mandatory relation held by the rebel master should escheat to the Federal government in a modified sense, so as to enable his proper government and gradual removal to a proper home where he can be independent.
Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, Johnson Publishing Company, Chicago, 2000, pg. 514:
More ominously, Lincoln said he was still committed still committed to an all-White nation, with a transitional period of quasi-freedom followed by the deportation of the freedmen. This is what he said:Heretofore colored people, to some extent, have fled north from bondage; and now, perhaps, from both bondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation be adopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will give them wages at least until new laborers can be procured; and the freed men, in turn, will gladly give their labor for the wages, till new homes can be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race.Here then in unexpurgated language, is Lincoln's blueprint for the American future. It's all there, all of it—his gradualism, his racism, his deeply rooted belief that this land was the White man's land—and there is no possibility of understanding him or the Proclamation without an understanding of the official plan for a new White America he unfolded in this State of the Union message.
Despite its thrice-repeated calls for deportation of Blacks, despite its passionate plea for a continuation of slavery for thirty-seven years, despite its official projection of the notion of an all- white nation, the whole American cultural structure—historians, curators, writers, editors—has endorsed this message.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln3/1:1.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext
First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, CW 3:14-15
Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals, on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slave-masters.When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,—to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded. We can not, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south.
To which I would add, ProgressingAmerica adds his endorsement to Lincoln's plan for deportation of the Black race. Not that it's racist or anything.
The African slave trade itself was run out of the northern states, notably Rhode Island and New York.That is grossly incorrect. The African slave trade itself was run out of England's port cities, notably Bristol and Liverpool. To whatever extent trading came to exist in the colonies, they were very little competition for the two elephants in the living room over there. And even after Independence, they still provided only paltry deliveries. Liverpool's and Bristol's dominance didn't just go poof and disappear on July 4th, 1776.
You are certifiable. From July 4, 1776 until the Paris Peace Treaty of September 3, 1783, the united states were at war with Great Britain. You must have missed that part of history. YES, all British imports went poof on July 4, 1776, slaves included.
About 94% of all slave trade did not go to the United States, but to South and Central America, and to the islands. All of that is irrelevant to this discussion.
Some 60% of all slave trading voyages that launched from North America — amounting to 945 trips between 1700 and 1850 — began in tiny Rhode Island. In some years, it was more than 90% and most of those journeys set out from Newport, making it the most trafficked slaving port of origin on the continent.“The streets of Newport were paved with the duties paid on enslaved people,” said the UW-Madison scholar, who wrote the book Dark Work: The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island.
[...]
Although the city of 25,000 people is now over 80% white and only 8% Black, in the mid-1700s, approximately a quarter of Newport’s population was Black or African, the second-highest share in the U.S. at the time behind Charleston, South Carolina.
http://smallstatebighistory.com/rhode-island-dominates-north-american-slave-trade-in-18th-century/
African enslaved persons were sparse in the colony of Rhode Island throughout the 17th century, with only 175 in total in 1680. Prior to 1696, the English Royal African Company monopolized the Atlantic slave trade. However, when this was lifted, Rhode Islanders aggressively expanded into the Atlantic trading system, and therefore, the slave trade.Within 30 years the colony of Rhode Island, and in particular Newport, came to dominate the North American slave trade. Even though it was the smallest of the colonies, the great majority of slave ships leaving British North America came from Rhode Island ports. Historian Christy Clark-Pujara, in her book Dark Work, The Business of Slavery in Rhode Island, indicates that during “the colonial period in total, Rhode Island sent 514 slave ships to the coast of West Africa, while the rest of the colonists sent just 189.” Historian Jay Coughtry in The Notorious Triangle, argues that “the Rhode Island slave trade and the American slave trade were virtually synonymous” and that “only in Rhode Island was there anything that can properly be termed a slave trade.”
http://southcountyhistorycenter.org/slavery-southern-rhode-island
The owners of these larger farms became known as “Narragansett Planters,” referencing southern Rhode Island’s nickname at the time, “Narragansett Country.” Through their connections to the Atlantic slave trade, these men began to buy enslaved African people from colonies in the Caribbean (and eventually directly from Africa) to work on their farms and increase production of goods for export. At the height of the Narragansett Planter’s operations in the mid-18th century, there were 25 – 30 large plantations, and it is estimated that between 15% and 25% of Washington County’s population was enslaved. The plantations in southern Rhode Island were very profitable. Their owners were some of the wealthiest people in the colony of Rhode Island, allowing them to develop a leisurely lifestyle that mirrored that of the upper classes in England.
That's why known slave imports aboard British ships number well over three million, on American ships it barely scratches past 300,000.
Well over 90 percent of enslaved Africans were sent to the Caribbean and South America. Only about 6 percent of African captives were sent directly to British North America. Yet by 1825, the US population included about one-quarter of the people of African descent in the Western Hemisphere.
In a discussion of U.S. history, nobody gives a good crap about the 90+ percent of the slave trade that went to other places.
Do you seriously think you can persuade Black people there was no racism at the time of the Framing?Define it.
Define it yourself. Use a dictionary if you don't know what it means. If you don't know what that is, it is a big book with definitions of words. Perhaps you should have learned the word before producing a spiel about it.
Who were those three-fifths of all other persons?The three fifths isn't what matters. It's the two fifths withheld. The two fifths is everything.
Some of it, plus the rest of it, is all of it.
The three-fifths and the two-fifths are the same persons. Each five-fifths of the slave population was counted in the census. For representation, each state was penalized by counting only three-fifths of its census count of enslaved inhabitants. Aliens were still counted as five-fifths of their total, then as now. Even illegal aliens are fully counted in the census and for purposes of representation.
The three-fifths and the two-fifths refer to the total slave population of a state, not to individuals.
Abbott: Strange as it may seem, they give ball players nowadays very peculiar names.
Costello: Funny names?
Abbott: Nicknames, nicknames. Now, on the St. Louis team we have Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--
Costello: That's what I want to find out. I want you to tell me the names of the fellows on the St. Louis team.
Abbott: I'm telling you. Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third--
Costello: You know the fellows' names?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well, then who's playing first?
Abbott: Yes. Costello: I mean the fellow's name on first base. Abbott: Who.
Costello: The fellow playin' first base.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first base.
Abbott: Who is on first.
Costello: Well, what are you askin' me for?
Abbott: I'm not asking you--I'm telling you. Who is on first.
Costello: I'm asking you--who's on first?
Abbott: That's the man's name.
Costello: That's who's name?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?
Abbott: Every dollar of it. And why not, the man's entitled to it.
Costello: Who is?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: So who gets it?
Abbott: Why shouldn't he? Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.
Costello: Who's wife?
Abbott: Yes. After all, the man earns it.
Costello: Who does?
Abbott: Absolutely.
Costello: Well, all I'm trying to find out is what's the guy's name on first base?
Abbott: Oh, no, no. What is on second base.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first!
Can you actually keep a straight face and tell Black people that they were not treated differently at the Framing?What kind of foolish idiot would make such an argument to begin with?
You are the only such foolish idiot I know who would make such an absurd argument. Do you now admit there was racism at the Framing, and that Blacks were treated differently because of their race? That's raciss.
At the Founding, slavery was lawful in all thirteen colonies. English law made it so.This is the logical place to begin. At least within the years of 1765 to 1782, Americans no-longer-British as well as the U.S.A are themselves(ourselves) also the victims of colonialism. They did publish a Declaration with a list of grievances in it, so there's that.
Lord only knows what the year 1765 has to do with anything. The list of grievances complained about what the king did. It hasn't got much to do with their subsequent racist acts.
The victimhood was having a load of Blacks who were not welcome among us, and not having a solution to make them disappear. From Jefferson to Lincoln, they clearly stated the desire for an all-White nation.
Again I will let you hear from a Black man. Lerone Bennett, Jr., Forced Into Glory, 2000, pg. 315-316:
Lincoln said he had never tried to apply the principal rights of the Declaration of Independence to slavery for the political rights of Blacks in America. On at least fifteen occasions, he said publicly that the principles of the Declaration didn't require him or anybody else to do anything about slavery in the South ad Jim Crow in the North.How in the world did the Lincoln patrol miss these statements? How in the world did they overlook the repeated assertions (CW 2:266, 274, 385, 501, 520; CW 3:16, 222, 249, 255, 276, 300) in which Lincoln said publicly that the "necessities" of whiteness negated any and all eloquent statements he made about the Declaration of Independence and made it necessary to enslave Blacks in the South and to subordinate them in the North.
How is it that I am the only one to read these words?
How is it that I am the only one to report in this context that Lincoln said—you read the words—"Negroes have natural rights... although they cannot enjoy them here."
There is a difference between slavery in the states at the Founding and abolition of the importation of slaves via the African slave trade.Historically speaking, this is untenable and factually incorrect. This is based on loads of propaganda pitched for decades by the progressive movement within this country.
Notwithstanding your meandering mealy mouthed Kamala-esque nonsense, ending the importation of slaves did not end slavery. The number of slaves in the United States grew without importation by making babies.
Thomas Clarkson's organization, the original organization, was aimed at abolishing the slave trade. It was called the "Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade".
The topic is the United States. Thomas Clarkson was English.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/08/03/emancipation-day-reminder-caribbean-still-needs-justice-repair
Emancipation Day – A Reminder That Caribbean Still Needs Justice, RepairPublished in: Jamaica Gleaner
On August 1, Anglophone Caribbean nations commemorate Emancipation Day, marking the 1834 abolition of slavery in the British Empire and the 1838 abolition of apprenticeship, a system which forced formerly enslaved people to continue to work uncompensated for their former masters. Emancipation was not a gift. The Slavery Abolition Act, which banned slavery in the British colonies, followed a shift in the British Empire’s economic interests and sustained resistance by enslaved people through massive slave revolts, like Bussa’s Rebellion in Barbados, and guerilla warfare, as in the case of Jamaica’s Maroons.
While resistance helped pave the way for emancipation in the 1800s, the Caribbean was not free from British colonial rule for another century. For centuries, Caribbean people fought for liberation from slavery and colonization. Today, amid new calls for the UK to tackle systemic racism and reckon with the crimes of the British Empire, Caribbean people are still fighting for justice and repair.
[...]
What Clarkson has to do with racism in the United States in the Founding era, or at any time, is a mystery. I guess you found it better to babble than to address anything I wrote.
Virginia was the first of the English colonies to import slaves, and they opposed and eliminated the African slave trade in 1778It would've been earlier if not for the kingly veto.
In your typical slimy manner, you ignored the part about Virginia keeping slavery until 1865. It's not like they freed slaves. They just stopped importing more from Africa.
Your claim that there were only two embracing slave states at the time of the Framing is patent nonsense.The evidence could not be more clear.
You accidentally said something correct. The Constitution was ratified unanimously by all thirteen original states. The Constitution protected the slave trade for twenty years and placed the Fugitive Slave Clause beyond the power of Congress.
Your intimation that anyone wanting to free the slaves was not racist is a further example of patent nonsense. Many wanted to get rid of the slaves.?I will only defend my words. I'm not interested in your mischaracterization. I said: "Many of the most hardcore abolitionist came from the prior slave-owning ranks, and that's true both on the American and the British side." I stand by my own words, should you decide in the future that you'd like to reply to them.
As you have denied that your statement even intimated that someone who wanted to free the slaves was not racist, your statement is now meaningless for this discussion.
See Forced Into Glory, by Lerone Bennett, Jr., p. 251. Mr. Bennett was an editor with Ebony magazine for about a half century.I'm well acquainted with Lerone Bennett, who wrote quite a detailed article about how black slavery in the 13 colonies was preceded by white slavery in the 13 colonies, in that very same magazine. "White Servitude in America"
I referenced a 652 page book, not a magazine article. Your response babbles with meaningless drivel.
The Bennett quote you avoided responding to was:
This is a pivotal point, one that has been masked by rhetoric and imperfect analysis. For to say, as Lincoln said a thousand times, that one is only opposed to the extension of slavery is to say a thousand times that one is not opposed to slavery where it existed. Based on this record and the words of his own mouth, we can say that the "great emancipator" was one of the major supporters of slavery in the United States for at least fifty-four of his fifty six years.
That is pure fantasy. Upon independence, any State could have abolished slavery.It's pure reality. Upon independence, they had a war to fight that in any number of ways they could have easily lost.
In reality, they won the war in 1783 and waited until 1865 to pass the 13th Amendment. Get real.
Slavery was forced on the Colonies by England. Who forced it upon the States after independence?Yes, one and the same.
It was a freely made decision by the States to ratify the Constitution. Neither the British nor the Evil Empire made the Framers or the States do anything. The North could have chosen differently, but then there would have been two Unions, and the Northwest Territories would have belonged to the one with Virginia.
I typed: "Just focusing on acts, publicly and verifiable. Can you point to any time Jefferson advanced legislation, got all involved in and worked up about, or otherwise, and was a supporter of the institution of slavery?"Reply: "When he was boinking 14-year old Sally Hemings. For his entire adult life he owned slaves, lots of slaves."
Looks like we have concluded with your failure here. At no point did Jefferson ever advance any legislation, get involved otherwise, nor act or public whatever. At all times, Jefferson was firmly on the abolitionist/anti-slaving side. It was your stipulation for acts, not words. Now you want to shift goal posts back to personal drama and at that, something which ultimately can't be definitively proven. It just goes on and on. No, you don't get to do that. At all times as a legislator, Jefferson was firmly on the abolitionist/anti-slaving side. You said it. Acts speak louder than words.
That is common knowledge and an act of Thomas Jefferson. I do not know what is on CNN as I do not receive it. However, it is at the Monticello site, among many other places.
https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/
Madison Hemings recounted that his mother “became Mr. Jefferson’s concubine” in France. When Jefferson prepared to return to America, Hemings said his mother refused to come back, and only did so upon negotiating “extraordinary privileges” for herself and freedom for her future children. He also noted that she was pregnant when she arrived in Virginia, and that the child “lived but a short time.” No other record of that child has been found.We don’t know if she tried to negotiate for her personal freedom, or why she trusted Jefferson would keep his promise.
1789 Hemings arrived back in Virginia and slavery at the age of 16. According to Madison Hemings, she was pregnant with Jefferson's child.
[...]
The historical evidence points to the truth of Madison Hemings’s words about “my father, Thomas Jefferson.” Although the dominant narrative long denied his paternity, since 1802, oral histories, published recollections, statistical data, and documents have identified Thomas Jefferson as the father of Sally Hemings’s children. In 1998, a DNA study genetically linked one of Hemings’s male descendants with the male line of the Jefferson family, adding to the wealth of evidence.
Jefferson was a Member of the Virginia House of Delegates from Albemarle County, October 7, 1776 – May 30, 1779, and December 10, 1781 – December 22, 1781. Do tell whatever he notably did in the Virginia House of Delegates during the revolutionary war.
Jefferson is not known for being a legislator.
Jefferson was a slave owner his entire adult life.
If you would stop watching CNN long enough you would know that since they didn't have actual Thomas Jefferson DNA, they couldn't possibly have proven anything by a DNA test. Herbert Barger, who was for years the Genealogist at Monticello looked for any evidence he could find and concluded the accusation is false. The most likely culprit is Randolph Jefferson, not Thomas. The report of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society was very different from those promoted by your friends in the liberal media.
I do not receive CNN, you goofy clown. And read my post again:
It is still better known that Virginia did not get rid of slavery and neither did Jefferson personally. He remained a slave owner until he died. He freed the family of Sally Hemings, but those were blood relatives. Consult again the quote of Thomas Jefferson supra. And see the estate sale notice following his death.
As you admit, they found Jefferson DNA in the male line of the Hemings family. I said he freed blood relatives. That is what he did. You only raise a doubt whether they would be Thomas Jefferson's children or nephews and nieces.
If you were not addicted to MSNBC, you might not be such a crackpot. Turn off the boob tube and work on your reading and research skills as you do not evidence any. You really shouldn't even try to tackle DNA. You seem to still be struggling to figure out where babies come from.
In the Jefferson draft of the Kentucky Resolutions:What about them?
I'll repeat the quote again because you seem to have missed it.
In the Jefferson draft of the Kentucky Resolutions:5. Resolved, That in addition to the general principle, as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision, inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has declared that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808;” that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien friends, described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens: that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory: that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.In his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson wrote that for the Federal government "to remove them [the slaves] when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is, therefore, contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void." Not exactly abolitionist. And then there were all his slaves that he diodn't free, not even in his will. Nope, the Jefferson estate put them up for sale. Except for the Hemings who were his blood relatives.
When Jefferson was involved with the Northwest Ordinance, he went out of his way to make it about slavery.And as stated, the Ordinance said this: which I will repeat just for you:
Article the Sixth. There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude in the said territory otherwise than in the punishent of crimes, wereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided always that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.There was a Fugitive Slave Clause in it!
I can see how you found that to be abolitionist. Take the words, add Bidenesque dementia, and there ya go.
Who were the people who were not free citizens?The question is who were the free citizens.
No the question was clear. You were just unable to answer it. You know the answer, you just don't want to say it.
Denying a history of racism is simply embarrassing. It happened.We were not having a discussion about Jim Crow.
No we are not. We are having a discussion featuring, in relevant part, your denial of the existence of Jim Crow.