Posted on 06/23/2015 11:10:41 PM PDT by RightGeek
Edited on 06/24/2015 12:56:35 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
CNN DUMMY: Should We Take Down Thomas Jefferson Memorials Because He Owned Slaves?
CNN Host: Should We Take Down Thomas Jefferson Memorials Because He Owned Slaves?
The debate over whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed from government buildings in South Carolina is squeezing out weapons grade stupidity from just about every corner of the America media today.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysurge.com ...
DC = District of Corruption
Why wouldn’t we? and almost any other founder too? Most of our history and the American flag as well.
All of it is ‘racist’. It’s coming and the GOP will fall in line.
White Western culture and people are under attack.
Stand up white man.
No, we should take them down because of Jefferson's support of the French Jacobins and the Reign of Terror and his consequent betrayal of the President he served as Secretary of State, George Washington.
” CNN DUMMY: Should We Take Down Thomas Jefferson Memorials Because He Owned Slaves?”
“Then why not just ban Democrats? Weren’t all the confederate leaders Democrat?”
_ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ -
Then why not remove the present slavemaster from the office of President of the United States?
He is daily enslaving the entire citizenry through the borrowing of sums from other countries which we can never pay back. The road to slavery is debt says the book of Proverbs.
Besides, all the necessities that Washington gives to the citizenry and beyond, in a sense, make them indebted to the slavemaster Obama, who also forces away our money and uses it to kill unborn children and foster perversion by buying birth control pills with it, as if we were all a bunch of his slaves.
On the other hand, just because other people besides Obama once owned slaves, doesn’t mean they hated them or abused them in every way as Obama does. Just because other people besides Obama once owned slaves, doesn’t mean that they wanted to mass-murder them either.
According to folks that do the historical research at Monticello, Jefferson owned 700 slaves over his life time.
Coming soon: calls to ban the only flag to institutionalize slavery in its Constitution: Old Glory
/sarc
The slaves at Monticello had a nickname for Thomas Jefferson.... “Daddy”
Actually, one of the richest slave owners was black.
Right.
There is little about Jefferson’s treatment of his slaves that can be considered admirable or even acceptable.
This part is just wrong. “Jefferson gave away many of the estimated 170 slaves he owned after his death.”
Jefferson free two slaves during his lifetime and five in his will. Arguably because they were his children, or at minimum were blood relatives. Another two possible offspring were allowed to escape.
That’s a total of nine freed, out of 170 or possibly 700. To my mind that’s simply not “many.”
You were taught wrong.
The Emancipation Proclamation immediately freed 50k to 75k slaves in areas occupied by the Union Army but not specifically excluded in the EP.
As the Union Army advanced for the rest of the War, the EP was made effective in the areas occupied.
In the final analysis, the vast majority of slaves, something well over 3M, were freed by the EP. It didn't become fully effective everywhere on the day it was promulgated, since it had to be enforced.
But then our Declaration of Independence wasn't fully effective on July 4, 1776, either. Was it?
We should ban the democrat party because they were the group that foment ed the Civil War and backed slavery. BTW, every Jim Crow law ever conceived, drafted, introduced, debated, voted on, passed, signed and enforced was done so by democrats.
Exactly. If you wanted to ban one thing that, more than any other thing, promoted, defended and expanded slavery, racial segregation and use of race hatred to stay in power, and caused more misery for blacks in the US than any other thing, you would ban the Democratic Party.
Border states that stayed with the union were thus exempt, but many passed laws abolishing slavery before the civil war ended.
Source: www.pbs.org Africans in America series. Resource Bank: Emancipation Proclamation
Please, allow me to repeat:
Then why not just ban Democrats? Weren’t all the confederate leaders Democrat?
Wait, wait, isn’t Tom Jefferson supposed to be an ancestor of (wait for it) William the Impeached??
My great-great grandfather fought in the Civil War as a Confederate. He didn’t own slaves, was just a hard-working white man, fought at Shiloh as the most prominent battle we know about in our family. - We did have some relatives further back who owned slaves down in Georgia Indian Territory. One of their sons married a Cherokee woman; which about caused my ggggggg-grandmother to have a conniption fit. So, our gggggg-grandfather gave the kids their inheritance in gold & they boarded a boat & came to Tennessee. That’s how we got to Tennessee.
Which does not contradict anything I said. Even in the last days of the war, Lincoln proposed offering return to the Union and compensated emancipation to the seceded states. Even his own cabinet opposed him and he dropped the idea.
Slaves were freed, legally, in a number of ways.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed, over time, the vast majority.
Slaves were freed by state action before the end of the war in MO, MD, WV, TN, AR and LA. Possibly others. Some of these had previously been freed by the EP, and some of the “state governments” involved were puppets of the Union military.
Slaves were freed in KY (abound 50k) and DE (<200) by 13A. But of course slavery had ceased to exist in any meaningful form before then in those states, as there was no functional legal enforcement of the institution.
What 13A really did was to destroy any possibility of the institution coming back. EP freed individuals, it did not destroy the institution, which in theory a state could have brought back any time it chose.
I have always found the denigration of the Emancipation Proclamation because it was not universally and instantly enforced really odd.
The Reagan Doctrine laid out Reagan’s intention to take the fight to the commies and eventually free their slaves. Which it eventually did, most of them.
Are we to put the Reagan Doctrine down because it didn’t free those groaning under commie tyranny instantly and everywhere?
Similarly, various proclamations of the Allies in WWII put forth their intent to fight till Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally, freeing their slaves?
Should those proclamations be put down because it took a lot of hard fighting to put them into effect?
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.