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.
I am, 100% Instead of keeping it simple in response to actual names of Founding Fathers and prominent abolitionists, you've constructed this funky and contrived back and forth to fit whatever narrative is in your head.
I have no incentive to defend your words as if they were my own. I have no reason to comply with your contrivance here either.
"The opposite. And I'm not insinuating. I'm stating it boldly to the point of non-refutation"
I stand by those words even more now than I did before, now that you have gone 3 posts and refused to acknowledge the actual Founding Fathers and prominent abolitionists I named. How could such facts be this inconvenient?
In any case, the more you refuse it, the more I know I'm right.
"The "Royal Disallowance" was used far more frequently than you think."
This is a good link. I wish you would do this sort of thing more often than the mickey mouse games you've done over the last several others. I will probably use this link myself for various things - among those, people who cling to the myth that the empire had no meddlesome culture when it came to the colonies.
"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."
That's funny, I keep saying this very thing. I just said it to you in the last post. Why is there an echo in here?
"Refuting falsehoods means little if people see you ignoring or downplaying things which are nonetheless true."
Couldn't have said it better myself. When I can name prominent Founding Fathers and abolitionists and you're ignoring or downplaying things which are nonetheless true, I have to ask.
Why are you here? What is your agenda for this discussion?
Oh, and BTW, did you either read the text or listen to the audio book, or is that too inconvenient for you also? The real question comes down to this: Do you even want to know anything in regard to the Founding Fathers and abolitionism? So far, you have avoided it like the plague.