How does that help your argument?"
What I said helps my argument, I could not have been more clear. I said it for that reason. What you said, I have no incentive nor inclination to defend. I mentioned several Founding Fathers by name and you choose to ignore those paragraphs, so I have nothing of my own actual words in that section to defend. I likewise mentioned several prominent abolitionists of the era. You also made the choice to ignore that. What else should I say when you go so far as to ignore basically the whole thing?
If you actually want to challenge what I said and not do a bait and switch for your own words, let's talk. For now, I'm not defending your words under the guise that they are my own.
"I'm not sure if you're double-checking what you write, because you seem to be undercutting yourself unintentionally."
If I had gotten something wrong in the paragraphs that specifically mentioned, by name, several founders and several prominent abolitionists of the era, I'm sure you would've highlighted that paragraph and shown what was wrong with it. I'm completely sure and convinced of this. The paragraphs must be accurate though. Here we are, zero corrections to fight over.
"was of such character that it would have been "absolutely devastating to the king"?"
I can think of no other colonial laws that got a direct veto from the King of England.
Can you? I'd bet there's one or two. But I can't think of them.
"Because here's what I don't get: your zeal in defending the character of the Founders with regards to the Atlantic slave trade (of which there were many with an abolitionist sentiment) has led you to decry or ignore factual matters on these topics:"
I'm an American, why wouldn't I defend America first? Besides, the New York Times didn't slander Britain, now did they? Is there a 1618 Project floating around that I don't know about? - or, what's the actual name of it? This 1618 Project, that is all about some British something I don't know, what specifically is the Slimes slandering Britain about with fake history? I'd like to see it so that we can both be informed about this.
Are you sure?
Because in response to my rejoinder ("A slave trade can't exist if no one is willing to buy. Yet there were numerous American colonists who were willing to buy."), you retorted "Patriot or Loyalist?" (The implication, given the course of the argument, that one side was more willing to buy than the other.)
So naturally, I asked "Are you insinuating that every colonist who purchased slaves during the American Revolution were Loyalists?" (Because why ask the question unless you wanted to make hay with it? Even a simple documented majority of slave purchasers being on the side of the Loyalists would have bolstered your argument.)
Yet instead, you answered "The opposite. And I'm not insinuating. I'm stating it boldly to the point of non-refutation."
With you directly affirming that the majority of slave purchasers during the Revolution in the colonies were not Loyalists, but rather Patriots, I had to make sure there was no misunderstanding ("Let me remind you of what I asked: whether or not every American colonist who purchased slaves (i.e. engaged in the economic practice of trading slaves) during the American Revolution were Loyalists (i.e. supporters of the British)...So you're affirming "boldly to the point of non-refutation" that those who purchased slaves during the American Revolution were all Patriots opposed to the British?")
Your response is to instead double down ("What I said helps my argument, I could not have been more clear. I said it for that reason."), even though your affirmation directly contradicts your own points raised throughout this thread.
It's not a matter of me "ignoring" evidence (as you seem fit to claim), but rather you providing outlandish rhetorical takes that unwittingly detonate the very points you're trying to make.
It's not "baiting or switching" words or anything of the sort; rather, I'm trying to help you clarify what you're actually trying to say without unwittingly ignoring or being contradicted by the evidence you yourself bring up (because otherwise, your argumentation would be all too easy to dismiss). Yet you seem strangely persistent on doubling down for reasons I can't really fathom.
Such as here: Here we are, zero corrections to fight over.
Even though you explicitly affirmed that (at the bare minimum) more Patriots were involved with the slave trade during the Revolution than Loyalists were.
This isn't that hard to grasp: if you're going to argue for something, why say things that go against what you're actually arguing for?
I can think of no other colonial laws that got a direct veto from the King of England.
The "Royal Disallowance" was used far more frequently than you think. Per the eminent American historian Charles M. Andrews: "Before the end of the colonial period was reached, every colony had had one or more laws disallowed; during the eighty-three years of her second charter, Massachusetts had forty-seven public laws and twelve private laws disallowed; while with other colonies the number was much greater. The machinery of transmission was very far from perfect, even among the royal colonies. Many laws were never sent over; others were never acted upon or were held so long that months and even years elapsed before a decision was reached."
But I digress.
I'm an American, why wouldn't I defend America first?
And now we get to the crux of the matter: defending one's country should not influence you to ignore things which are true yet inconvenient.
It's a really telling example, but it's simply too educational to ignore: earlier in the thread, you favorably cited George Bancroft in one of your own blog posts; imagine that you're trying to pull someone away from the falsehoods of the 1619 Project, and so you provide them links to your blog.
What would this hypothetical person think when — after reading Bancroft write point blank that the colonies of Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina were alarmed "at the dangerous increase of the colored population", showing "an anxious preference for the introduction of white men" — they saw your little rhetorical flourish at the end about how "the race card couldn't have been played against the country", when the historical evidence you yourself provided played the same card?
Possibly that you don't read what you're providing, or perhaps that you're full of hogwash. Either way, you would destroy your own credibility in that person's eyes by doing so.
Refuting falsehoods means little if people see you ignoring or downplaying things which are nonetheless true.