Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Where do you keep coming up with this "Marxism" nonsense? You know better, but I guess it makes you feel good to say such things.
As Americans all of us are indoctrinated from youth. The government schools do this to us from the earliest of ages(it usually begins just after being a toddler), and before the schools are even finished indoctrinating us the media add on to this indoctrination. Universities deepen the indoctrination if someone attends.
Very few people take any time to reject that indoctrination, and they carry the indoctrination with them for the rest of their lives.
"It’s ALL part of US History. ALL. OF. IT."
Then you should have no problem at all with exclaiming explicitly that many of the U.S.'s Founding Fathers were slavery abolitionists. If you cannot do this then you're only excoriating yourself by not accepting all of it, you're only accepting of the progressive indoctrination.
You cannot have it both ways.
"Can people not tell the patriotic story of the US AND discuss the issue of slavery AND the those involved in keeping it OR banishing it?"
You didn't. Nowhere did you try to be consistent. Do not hold other people to a standard you are unwilling or incapable of holding to yourself while you come in here and excoriate others. Be consistent, and be consistent first. Consistency is very important.
1: The U.S. invented slavery, all the Founders were racists, and it all goes back to the year 1619, and the Founders couldn't wait to get their grubby hands on it and keep the black man down. They were demanding slavery.
2: The U.S. inherited slavery from the Empire, many of the Founders were abolitionists and fought against the empire on this very topic.
You only get to have one, either number 1 or number 2. Pick wisely.
No contradictions there -- they were content to do what they could to abolish slavery and leave the rest to future generations."
This needed to be repeated.
It is just bizarre to watch the Civil War caucus do its level best to duck and weave this information.
They don't explicitly say it is incorrect. They just propagandize it or ignore it as too inconvenient to address.
Its just very weird. It makes no sense.
It should not exist.
Massachusetts has never needed to pass a slavery abolition law, the Mass. Constitution itself is very clear about the issue. Massachusetts' own culture as an abolitionist state going back to 1769 also could not be more clear.
The Founding Fathers were so happy about how Massachusetts handled the abolition of slavery in 1783 that none of the Founders believed what Massachusetts had done was wrong. None of them that I am aware of saw need for redress.
Cushing was even rewarded later. Twice. He was put on the Supreme Court and eventually made Chief.
You and your crew have deified the "Fugitive Slave Clause" in a way that is unwarranted considering that originally that clause applied to three classes of persons:
1) Indentured servants
2) Redemptioners
3) Slaves
Complain all you want. You can't unmake it. It's no wonder your whole crew are so rejecting of notions of Originalism. You only want what the clause came to be, not what it started out as.
It's just that they do not want to discuss one specific item/era. That is, the Abolitionist Founding Fathers. So any other is alright.
This was not meant to be sarcasm and should not be interpreted as such.
That is an interesting comment.
I would have thought most business people - even farmers - would think profits are important; nearly determinative.
Acquiring agricultural inputs for the purpose of acquiring inputs without regard to profits doesn't seem like a good business plan.
Said differently, the agricultural workforce needs were probably driven by calculations of profits - not by a free/all other persons ratio plucked out of thin air.
Three/fifths was a (political) compromise ratio plucked out of thin air.
I will say this: the more money made with a successful business model, the harder it is to throw the model and profits away.
Excuse the anecdote but I have known farm families that did not believe in smoking but grew and sold tobacco to others for no other reason than putting food on the table and paying the bank note.
The Army caused the KKK."
There is a lot of logic to this.(It also has its flaws but I refuse to get pulled into the CW swamp) The exact reasons for the Army and the logical resistance that arises because of it are, of course, as was also mentioned about the French Underground, the same reasons generally speaking during the American Revolution.
It's all the same reasons why the Founding Fathers opposed the Empire's Slavery. Not "American Slavery". The Empire's slavery which was indistinguishable from what existed in the Caribbean/West Indies.
The Empire's slavery. Which was later inherited by the U.S. against the U.S.'s will. It was forced on the United States. I will not, will not let this go, the facts themselves simply don't require me to let it go.
Slavery was forced on the United States by the British Empire.
It was not plucked out of thin air. You do not listen and do not read so your impenetrable fortress of ignorance is limitless.
That is not what he is doing. It can look that way on the surface and it was in-artfully stated. But that's not what it is.
I know all about the Massachusetts Constitution. It was written by my third cousin - many times removed of course. While the constitution is clear there were still many slaves in Massachusetts. They just called them servants.
Yes it was. He was justifying the KKK by equating it with the French Resistance and comparing the Union Army in the south to the NAZI army in France. His mythical “boot on the neck” of the south never happened as I showed. There weren’t enough troops there to oppress anyone.
Take note, I made a similar equation.
Did they start receiving paychecks beginning at that time as a servant would be expected to receive?
It's all the same reasons why the Founding Fathers opposed the Empire's Slavery. Not "American Slavery". The Empire's slavery which was indistinguishable from what existed in the Caribbean/West Indies.The Empire's slavery. Which was later inherited by the U.S. against the U.S.'s will.
Oh please! In 1788, thirteen states unanimously adopted the provisions in the Constitution which held slavery legal, and the fugitive slave law was the organic law in all thirteen states. 1788 is well after the Paris Peace Accords recognition of the independence of the thirteen states. The Evil Empire had no say in the matter.
It's all the same reasons why the Founding Fathers opposed the Empire's Slavery.
Ten (10) of the first twelve (12) elected Presidents were slaveowners. Washington and Jefferson remained slaveowners until the day they died.
Weren't you the guy bitching about how "gay marriage" and "abortion" coming out of the 14th amendment is a misreading of intent?
1) Indentured servants
0.1 %
2) Redemptioners
0.05 %
3) Slaves
99.85%
Who kept their own slaves in bondage.
A bit like the Drunk guy claiming he is sober.
Yeah. The Americans absolutely didn't want those profits. If only those D@mn British hadn't kept forcing them to take all that money.
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.