"You have bought into the leftist claim that America can't be admired - can't be allowed to continue - if it ever had slavery."
No. What I have bought into are the historical claims made by well established historians before progressives started re-writing the history books that slavery was the domain of the British Empire. Well the old historians do have a damn good point. Who else would it be?
Who else would it be? There was no United States prior to the rhetorical nuclear bomb that is known as the Declaration of Independence, which was dropped on July 2nd. We can all clearly establish that there's no U.S. of A. prior to 1776. That's not an arguable point, it flatly didn't exist.
So who is left? Be specific. You have plenty of choices. You got Portugal, there's Switzerland, there's France, Spain, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, and I suppose you could throw Russia in there for good measure if you need.
Who brought the slaves here? This is the most dead simple question ever. The U.S. doesn't yet exist, it's 1775 or some earlier date. Who brought the slaves here? Who's doing this garbage?
And who operated those plantations? This is another dead simple question, almost as dead simple as the one just asked. The U.S. doesn't yet exist, it's 1775 or some earlier date. Who is operating these plantations? Who's doing this garbage? You got Portugal, there's Switzerland, there's France, Spain, Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, and I suppose you could throw Russia in there for good measure. If I missed an answer, list it. But it's 1775. The U.S. doesn't exist yet. Yes, I'm repeating myself about 1775 because you have a documented dishonesty streak that we need to deal with.
"So you argue Americans never voluntarily owned slaves."
No. I argue that colonies as crown-subject organizations lacking in free will when attempting to do away with slavery were halted by a royal veto, a claim I an prove with the original source. The actual text of the veto. Historians have noted several occasions, in several colonies, where royal forces directly or on behalf of royal forces as empowered representatives,(such as governors) stonewalled attempts against that "nefarious traffic" as it was called.
The colonies were involuntarily against their will forced to keep slavery going. Both historians and the original sources state this. It is inarguable as it can be proven both ways. But being the curmudgeon that I am, I recorded the original sources into audio for several different occasions including such as this, since so many people are in refusal to read the original sources and act like they know everything, and you've proven that you engage in deceptive practices.
I did the hard work. All you have to do is press the play button, now how super convenient is that?
Yes. The British did do this.
It doesn't get more convenient than this, does it? Now, once you have either chosen to read the original sources or listened to them, you have little reason to continue saying that I'm making it up and falling for some left wing shill games.
"And if they did own slaves they intended to do away with slavery the day after July 4."
Why do you do this? What benefit do you derive from continually engaging in duplicity?
"well, it was the fault of one or two bad operators - the King of England; or my favorites Georgia and South Carolina. All their fault."
I can't help it what the actual recorded history states. Be sarcastic all you want.
You can hide from it or you can learn from it.
But besides the point, with regards to the act you cite, you seem to be focusing solely on the end piece ("It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws...by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.") when the actual context of the act in question is with respect to an additional increase on duties paid on slaves imported into Virginia (from 10% to 15%); it is with respect to impact on economic activity between Virginia and Britain that motivated the British Crown to negate that additional duty.
Now why would the colonial government of Virginia want to make it more expensive to import African slaves?
Ironically, the very same source cited — Bancroft — plays the "race card" your own blog post later decries (bold and underlined is emphasis mine): "The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and, under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endanger the very existence of your Majesty's American dominions. We are sensible that some of your Majesty's subjects in Great Britain may reap emolument from this sort of traffic; but, when we consider that it greatly retards the settlement of the colonies with more useful inhabitants, and may, in time, have the most destructive influence, we presume to hope that the interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in competition with the security and happiness of such numbers of your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects."
Likewise, Bancroft is again cited as saying "Maryland, Virginia, even Carolina, alarmed at the excessive production, and consequent low price, of their staples, at the heavy debts incurred by the purchase of slaves on credit, and at the dangerous increase of the colored population, each showed an anxious preference for the introduction of white men; and laws designed to restrict importations of slaves are scattered copiously along the records of colonial legislation."
You then wrote, without even a hint of irony, "This used to be more widely known, hence why the race card couldn't have been played against the country until the progressives succeeded in removing the entire Founding from the history books."
Funny how that works.
“The colonies were involuntarily against their will forced to keep slavery going.”
Brings to mind the recorded incident from an earlier period.
“And He said, ‘Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?’”
“Then the man said, ‘The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.’”
And so Adam blamed the woman.
And came dangerously close to blaming the Creator: “the woman whom You gave to be with me.”
What you seek to do is not something new; very human.
“I argue that colonies as crown-subject organizations lacking in free will when attempting to do away with slavery were halted by a royal veto, a claim I an prove with the original source.”
So the colonists lacked free will?
That is an interesting comment.
My understanding is the successful bidder at slave auctions was the one willing to pay more than the other bidders.
You paint the picture of Red Coat soldiers yanking a random yeoman farmer from his field, ordering him to the bank to borrow money, and forcing him to bid high for a slave against his will.
Slave traders were shipping slaves from Africa to points where there was a market demand. I find it hard to believe slave traders were pursuing an economic model where they would repeatedly ship valuable cargo across an ocean to a place where there were no customers.
I am not following your thinking.