Shoot The Bastards?

The Autonomist ^ | 8/10/04 | Reginald Firehammer

[Hank Kerchief]

 

Shoot The Bastards?

Claire Wolfe says, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." [from: 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution].

The Autonomist thinks we missed the cue to shoot the bastards in 1791, although some involved in the Whisky Rebellion tried. Since then, the government has grown ever more powerful, more intrusive, and more repressive. That provocative statement by Claire Wolfe sums up the two most prevalent views about what ought to be done to reverse this trend of government oppression and to restore the country to the, "land of liberty," the founders intended.

These "two" views are actually variations of the same view. They both presume the problem is how the government is run and that the solution is either to reform the government by "working within the system," or to correct the problem by "shooting" those who are abusing its power. (This is not necessarily what Claire Wolfe meant to imply, however.) What is wrong with both these views is the presumption that government is the solution, and that freedom will reign if we only have the right government.

But, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," Ronald Reagan eloquently stated. The freedom enjoyed by American citizens in the first one hundred fifty years of this country were not the result of the kind of government we had, but the fact there was so little of it. We have essentially the same kind of government today, but do not enjoy anything like the kind of freedom American citizens enjoyed as little as a hundred, of even sixty, years ago.

How To Regain Freedom

The Autonomist frankly believes, if you are going to be free in your lifetime, you will have to make yourself free. No movement, no program, no government or social change, and no revolution is going to bring you freedom in the foreseeable future. That, of course, is what the Autonomist is all about. It is the personal means to freedom The Autonomist promotes.

The Autonomist approach to freedom does not appeal to everyone. There are many other views of freedom and how to achieve it. While I do not agree with all of the approaches, or even all the objectives of other freedom lovers (and fighters), I both applaud and support all efforts to promote and work for freedom, whatever particular methods are advocated or employed.

I emphasize most people do not really want freedom. What most people want is safety and guarantees. Most people do not really even know what freedom is, and anyone born in the last 35 to 40 years has no firsthand experience with what it is like to be truly free. If freedom is ever going to be restored, or at least the march of encroaching government oppression and tyranny halted, we need all the freedom fighters we can get.

The Best Method?

So, what is the correct means to freedom. Do we attempt to reform the government? Do we educate the electorate so they will vote for the right candidates? Do we educate people to understand, no candidates are for freedom, and that some other kind of action is required? Is voting the answer, or is it time? Do we just wait for the absurd fiscal, domestic, and foreign policies to produce the inevitable economic and social collapse they must, or do we, "shoot the bastards," before that happens?

The variety of solutions for restoring freedom is almost endless, and those seriously pursuing the cause of freedom fall into a number of different, "camps," each advocating or working for their view of how freedom should be restored. While the objective is the same for all these people, most do not even know there are other freedom lovers in other camps, or if they know, they dismiss them as crackpots, ineffective, uninformed, unphilosophical, or "unrealistic."

Some may be any or all of these things, but the very idea of freedom is that every individual must pursue their objectives by their own lights. Where we agree we can choose to cooperate and support one another, and where we disagree, we are free to act on our own and argue for our views. However much we disagree, even if we think others efforts are doomed to failure, on the issue of freedom, we know they are on our side. On that issue we must agree, and wherever possible both support and encourage one another, and cooperate in any way we can, without compromising our own principles and purposes, of course. In the end, if the cause of freedom is lost, no other cause matters.

Who Is Fighting for Freedom?

If individual freedom is your love, even if you disagree with everything else you think other freedom lovers stand for, they are your friends. They are on your side. They want you to be free. Here are some of your friends:

There are the Objectivists—who emphasize that philosophy necessary to freedom. The modern freedom movements, to a very large extent, owe their impetus to the founder or Objectivism, Ayn Rand. In The Virtue of Selfishness she laid out the principles demonstrating why freedom is as much an essential to human life as food and water. In Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal she shows why a free economy is necessary for individual freedom, and that any other economic or political system is oppression and tyranny.

Objectivists, themselves, do not all agree on the best method of promoting freedom. Most believe it will take the spread of Objectivism itself. They believe, so long as people do not understand the moral and practical principles that make individual liberty necessary and possible, any government that is set up, is bound to devolve into tyranny.

This view believes the way to freedom is the teaching and evangelical route. A good example is a recent article on SOLO (Sense Of Life Objectivists) Marketing A Free Society: Education, Persuasion, and Conversion by Edward W. Younkins.

Solo is one of the three best known promoters of Objectivism. The other two are ARI (The Ayn Rand Institute), and TOC (The Objectivist Center). There is a great deal of disagreement between these three, although TOC and SOLO do work together on a number of levels. What unites them is the belief that every individual exists solely for the sake of his own enjoyment of life.

There are the Wolfeians—Claire Wolfe recently remarked on her BLOG, how strange it seemed to her to have her name used as a metaphor for when a shooting war would begin by the use of such expressions as, "Clare Wolfe time," or "half past Clair Wolfe." Those expressions are based on the, by now, famous quote from 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution with which I began this article.

There is not really a movement called, "Wolfeians," (as far as I know), but there are a great many very vocal, very active, individuals with a variety of different philosophical and political stances that are joined by the central issues addressed by Claire Wolfe in her books, articles, web page, BLOG, and Forum.

Most "Wolfeians" are Libertarians, but not all. They are like those who appear at the The Freedom Summit sponsored by Ernest and Donna Hancock with Marc and Amy Victor. Ernest hosts the radio talk show, "Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock." "The Freedom Summit is an annual seminar dedicated to promoting and advancing human freedom. To that end, the Freedom Summit offers speakers who have demonstrated their effectiveness in presenting the intellectual case for freedom."

Here are some examples: The 2001 summit included as speakers: Jacob Hornberger, Bob Levy, Vin Suprynowicz, Clint Bolick, and more; The 2002 summit inlcuded Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, Sharon Harris, L. Neil Smith, and more; The 2003 summit included Nathaniel Branden, Harry Browne, Boston T. Party (really), Representative Ron Paul and more. Scheduled for the October 8-10, 2004 summit are Ernest Hancock, Doug Casey, Don Boudreaux, Claire Wolfe, Mary Ruwart, Justin Raimondo, Lazarus Long (really), George Smith, Jim Peron, and Ken Schoolland.

There are the gulchers—which is what some "Wolfeians" and others call themselves. Those unfamiliar with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will have no idea what that means; and I am not going to tell you, because, if you love freedom, you must read that book.

But, I will give you a hint. The idea behind gulching is leaving the present political-economic system. It is not, "escape." Government itself has no wealth and no power of its own, all its wealth is confiscated from others and all its power is the power to harm and destroy, but even that must be expropriated from the citizens who produce it. Gulchers are just refusing to finance their own enslavement. If everyone did that, the government would collapse; but everyone is not going to do that.

There are the Libertarians—who also include a wide spectrum of philosophies and views. They are essentially united on one basic principle, that there is no legitimate purpose for, or function of, government except to protect its citizens from the threat or initiation of the use force by any other individuals or groups, foreign or domestic. Everything else, in their view, develops from that.

The Libertarians are very active, possibly the most active of any group in the freedom movement. They have their own political party and own presidential candidate.

While there are wide differences in their views, next to Objectivists, the Libertarians probably have the most intellectual ammunition in their arsenal. The Journal of Libertarian Studies from Ludwig von Mises Institute, and the Center for Libertarian Studies exploring the libertarian theory and practice of Murray N. Rothbard are examples.

There are the, "free-staters"—at least two varieties of them.

The Free State Project was initiated by Jason Soren's 7/23/01 The Libertarian Enterprise article, "Announcement: The Free State Project."

The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people who agree to move to New Hampshire if that many sign up. So far they have 5,978 signed-up. If they fail to get 20,000 signed-up by Sept. 2006, no one is required to make the move. Their purpose is explained in their "Statement of Intent:"

"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." I certainly hope they succeed; I live in New Hampshire.

But there is a competitor on the horizon, theFree State Wyoming project sponsored by Boston T. Party. To make his work, he is only setting his sights on the committment of 4000 people. I hope he succeeds as well. Wyoming is a beautiful state; it would be nice if it were also free.

There are the conservatives—who may or may not be for freedom, depending on whether they ever figure out what it is.

There is an extremely successful conservative forum, Free Republic which is very active and has over 100,000 signed members. They say in their welcoming page, "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."

So far so good.

In a personal statement of the founder it says, "In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side."

If that is what "conservatism" is, we applaud it. The problem is, most "political conservatives" are not for freedom at all. In most cases, they defend "economic" freedom, but otherwise have an agenda which includes some set of moral behavioral standards they believe ought to imposed on everyone by force of law. What they mean by, "conservative," is "Republican," and actively defend anything a Republican administration does, however outrageous, oppressive, or tyrannical.

Some percentage (probably not large) of posters to Free Republic really do want freedom and know what it is. The rest think freedom means freedom from temptation, or risk, or worry, or responsibility—which is how most Americans today think of freedom.

Choose Your Friends

If I must compromise my principles to have friends, I prefer no friends at all. To the extent that others seek freedom and fight for individual liberty, even if we disagree on all other things, at least on that point, I judge them as friends. No one can seek freedom without being in favor of my freedom. There are not many who seek freedom for themselves, and you can be sure they have no interest in yours or mine. In the struggle for liberty, we must take our friends and allies wherever we find them.

—Reginald Firehammer (8/10/04)

[Southack]

"We were unconstitutionally prohibited from buying gold coins for what, 40 years out of 217? Get real."

Yes, that's the point. We are *now* more free because we can legally buy, sell, own, and trade gold today compared to all of the above being illegal 70 years ago.

That's the point of debate: that we are more free today than back then. Gold being illegal back then but legal today is a specific case in point of that fact.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Get real. Blacks were unconstitutionally discriminated against in the military for 80 years or so. Before that they were slaves."

So aren't they more free today?!

You keep trying to claim that we are less free today than back then. I don't see your case. Blacks won't agree with you (see above). Women won't agree with you, either.

People who drink alcohol won't agree with you. Gun owners won't agree with you. People who own gold won't agree with you. People who use the Internet won't agree with you, either. You couldn't even legally trade stocks over the Internet as recently as 10 years ago.

So we are *clearly* more free today than then.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Blacks have voted in most northern & western states since emancipation."

And now Blacks vote nationwide.

Ergo, we are now more free than back when Blacks only voted in pockets of the country.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Pilots were banned from carry in 1980? -- Big deal, - 24 years to correct a mistake is about par for government."

The point is that we are *more* free today than back then.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Privately financed universities can still admit who they please. Public schools illegally discriminated."

...And now they don't. Ergo, we are now more free than back when Blacks couldn't attend the University of Alabama (with Democratic Governor Wallace standing in the doorway to stop them).

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"If I bothered to start listing ALL the BS 'laws' enacted since I was born in 1936, I doubt I could do it before I die."

Now that point I'll grant you!

However, we are more free today than we were living under the BS laws of the 1930's on. We've repealed substantial infringements upon our liberty, especially for Blacks and women.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[calcowgirl]

Anyone ever wonder why it's a short list?

ROFL!

[farmfriend]

After I added you I discovered that I already had you on it. Oh well, brain fart.

B4Ranch chided me over this one. One person did get it right though.

[tpaine]

We were unconstitutionally prohibited from buying booze from 1919 to 1933. 14 years out of 217. Get real.

No, it was specifically Constitutional because we passed an Amendment to our Constitution to ban alcohol.

Circular argument. There is no delegated power in our Constitution, -- to any level of our governments, -- to allow such infringements on our rights to life, liberty, or property.

The prohibitionists simply declared that a majority could so 'rule', and the courts went along with the charade of an amendment that was repugnant to one of the basic principles of our Constitution.

Moreover, not only did you get the Constitutional aspect wrong, but you missed the point that we are *more* free today than back then when alcohol was banned.

That's not a 'point', its your very odd opinion. The america of 1918 was a very free republic, -- for most of its citizens. Anyone that reads even grade school history of the era can tell you that.

That's the point of debate: that we are more free today than back then. Alcohol being illegal back then but legal today is a specific case in point of that fact.

Booze prohibition was a stake in the heart of the Republic. -- Why are you defending its ~repeal~ as a great blow for liberty?

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires.

Another great blow for liberty. Expiration of an infringement.

-- Mind boggling myopia.

[tpaine]

Southack wrote:

We've repealed substantial infringements upon our liberty, especially for Blacks and women.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, holding those thousands of unrepealed 'laws' infringing on all the rest of our liberties, hack..

[Southack]

"The america of 1918 was a very free republic, -- for most of its citizens. Anyone that reads even grade school history of the era can tell you that."

That's incorrect at *every* level. Women, 51% (that's more than half for the mathematically challenged among us) of our population in 1918, were *denied* the right to vote in America.

Women didn't win the right to vote until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920.

Readers of gradeschool history of that era can confirm the same, contrary to your bizarre assertation.

Blacks and women were hardly "more free" in 1918 as you claim.

We are all more free today than back then, as example after example that I keep citing confirms.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Circular argument. There is no delegated power in our Constitution, -- to any level of our governments, -- to allow such infringements on our rights to life, liberty, or property. The prohibitionists simply declared that a majority could so 'rule', and the courts went along with the charade of an amendment that was repugnant to one of the basic principles of our Constitution."

That's sheer denial, and it's entirely in error. Passing an Amendment to the Constitution is *entirely* Constitutional.

Your arguments to the contrary are silly, at best.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Booze prohibition was a stake in the heart of the Republic. -- Why are you defending its ~repeal~ as a great blow for liberty?"

I'm defending nothing. What I'm doing is correctly pointing out that we are *MORE FREE* today with alcohol once again legal than back in the 1920's when it was illegal.

Once again, we are *MORE FREE* today than back then.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Another great blow for liberty. Expiration of an infringement."

It beats the alternative (i.e. no expiration) and it further confirms my point that we are more free *after* the AWB expires than when it was law.

More free today than back then; a recurring point that I seem to need to keep making to you with tangible example after example...

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Southack]

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, holding those thousands of unrepealed 'laws' infringing on all the rest of our liberties, hack.."

That's absurd. The point that I'm making is that we are *more* free today than back then. Women voting. Blacks voting. CCW. Legal alcohol. Desegregation. Owning gold. Using the Internet for profit.

The point that I'm *not* making is your straw man above, that somehow we are totally free.

Is this difference so difficult to comprehend? The difference between being *more* free from that of being completely free?

We are more free today than back when women and Blacks couldn't vote or compete for the job of their choice (especially in the military). There was a time when Separate but "Equal" tried to rule our land, complete with shoddy schools for Blacks and distinct baseball leagues for pros of various ethnicity.

That's gone. Ergo, we are *more* free today than back then.

There is a theme here. I will continue to pound upon this theme until it becomes obvious to you (usually identified by name-calling or flight from the thread for contrived "reasons").

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[B4Ranch]

Because both of you seem very interested in the freedoms the blacks have gained since the '60's, allow me to give you some facts so that you can

"Stop the lies about slavery with researched facts!" Read them slowly so you will fully understand the media hype we have endured!

My close Black friends were very interested in these truths because they could now tell the truth to their friends using facts to back them up about just how incorrect the media hype has been. These men aren't saviors of the NAACP permanent victim policy. They have killed a lot myths in their own families with these items much to the disappointed of some in their local communities.

Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers. The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September.
Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia, Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1995) pp. 218-219

Citing the official US Census of 1830, there were 3,775 free blacks who owned 12,740 black slaves. Furthermore, the story outlines the history of slavery here, and the first slave owner, the Father of American slavery, was Mr Anthony Johnson, of Northampton, Virginia. His slave was John Casor, the first slave for life. Both were black Africans. The story is very readable, and outlines cases of free black women owning their husbands, free black parents selling their children into slavery to white owners, and absentee free black slave owners, who leased their slaves to plantation owners.
-"Selling Poor Steven", American Heritage Magazine, Feb/Mar 1993 (Vol. 441) p 90

Of course, a full telling of Black History would not be complete without a telling of the origin of slavery in the Virginia colony:
Virginia, Guide to The Old Dominion, WPA Writers' Program, Oxford University Press, NY, 1940, p. 378

"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.

Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'

Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/johnson.html

I found the reference, out of Michael A. Hoffman II's "They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America" : Joseph Cinque was himself a slave trader, selling his fellow blacks into this horror after he himself was set free by a US court.

Amistad producer Debbie Allen calls this destabilizing fact a "rumor." She'd better. If the thinking public, black and white, discover that "noble" Cinque later sold his own people in the very manner he condemned, then there will be a second mutiny, this time against Spielberg and his shameless hoaxing.

Here is Samuel Eliot Morrison, one of the most distinguished of American historians, writing in his "Oxford History of the American People,"
(New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1965), p. 520:

"The most famous case involving slavery, until eclipsed by Dred Scott's, was that of the Amistad in 1839. She was a Spanish slave ship carrying 53 newly imported Negroes who were being moved from Havana to another Cuban port. Under the leadership of an upstanding Negro named Cinqué, they mutinied and killed captain and crew. Then, ignorant of navigation, they had to rely on a white man whom they had spared to sail the ship.

"He stealthily steered north, the Amistad was picked up off Long Island by a United States warship, taken into New Haven, and with her cargo placed in charge of the federal marshal. Then what a legal hassle! Spain demanded that the slaves be given up to be tried for piracy, and President Van Buren attempted to do so but did not quite dare.

"Lewis Tappan and Roger Sherman Baldwin, a Connecticut abolitionist, undertook to free them by legal process, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. John Quincy Adams, persuaded to act as their attorney, argued that the Negroes be freed, on the ground that the slave trade was illegal both by American and Spanish law, and that mankind had a natural right to freedom.

"The court with a majority of Southerners, was so impressed by the old statesman's eloquence that it ordered Cinqué and the other Negroes set free, and they were returned to Africa. The ironic epilogue is that Cinqué, once home, set himself up as a slave trader."
(End quotation from historian Samuel Eliot Morrison)

BLACK SLAVEOWNERS
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

Child slavery today in West Africa?
http://gbgm-umc.org/nwo/99ja/child.html

Slavery throughout historyhttp://www.freetheslaves.net/slavery_today/slavery.html

"To pursue the concept of racial entitlement--even for the most admirable and benign of purposes--is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take it away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The modern commerce in humans rivals illegal drug trafficking in its global reach and in the destruction of lives.

Perhaps the group that had the strongest vested interest in seeing the South victorious were the black slaveowners. In 1830 approximately 1,556 black slaveowners in the deep South owned 7,188 slaves. About 25% of all free blacks owned slaves. A few of these were men who purchased their family members to protect or free them, but most were people who saw slavery as the best way to economic wealth and independence for themselves. The American dream in the antebellum South was just as powerful for free blacks as whites and it included the use of slaves for self-improvement. They bought and sold slaves for profit and exploited their labor just like their white counterparts.

Richard Rollins

After their capture one group of white Virginia slave owners and Afro-Virginians were asked if they would take the oath of allegiance to the United States in exchange for their freedom. One free negro indignantly replied: "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh nigger." A slave from this same group, upon learning that his master had refused, proudly exclaimed, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave agreed: "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." On another occasion a captured Virginia planter took the oath, but slave remained faithful to the Confederacy and refused. This slave returned to Virginia by a flag of truce boat and expressed disgust at his owner's disloyalty: "Massa had no principles." Confederate prisoners of war paid tribute to the loyalty, ingenuity, and diligence of "kind-hearted" blacks who attended to their needs and considered them fellow Southerners.

Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.

[Southack]

That's a bit off topic.

Nonetheless, we are all *more* free without slavery today than back then when we had it.

Such a concept is supposed to be axiomatic; that I have to continually explain it makes me further question our educational system.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[tpaine]

Dream on hack.
The only "tangible examples' you've made, -- make my point. Our Constitution is constantly being violated..

Once in a while we repeal a violation. -- 'Big deal', as our basic freedoms slip away at an ever increasing pace.

We had no federal gun laws at ALL, before 1933. This is a fact you cannot deny.

Now we have thousands. You are cheering that one set of them is expiring. -- Get a grip.

[tpaine]

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, holding those thousands of unrepealed 'laws' infringing on all the rest of our liberties, hack.."

The point that I'm *not* making is your straw man above, that somehow we are totally free.

I said we were 'totally free', just above? How weird. You're dreaming.

Is this difference so difficult to comprehend? The difference between being *more* free from that of being completely free?

We were completly free of federal gun laws prior to 1933. True? We arent any more. True? -- Ergo, we are not "more" free in our RKBA's. -- Correct?

We are more free today than back when women and Blacks couldn't vote or compete for the job of their choice (especially in the military). There was a time when Separate but "Equal" tried to rule our land, complete with shoddy schools for Blacks and distinct baseball leagues for pros of various ethnicity. That's gone. Ergo, we are *more* free today than back then.

Nope, not in the overall view. Some of our basic rights are being regulated to death. -- IE, our RKBA's.

There is a theme here. I will continue to pound upon this theme until it becomes obvious to you (usually identified by name-calling or flight from the thread for contrived "reasons").

Please continue. It's amusing to see you are arguing against your own best interest.

[B4Ranch]

>>That's a bit off topic.<<

Since when are facts off topic? We have been discussing the freedoms that Blacks have gained. Is it upsetting to you that many slave owners were Black themselves or that the numbers were not as great as the media hyped?