Considering the Louisiana Purchase, did the United States inherit slavery from France?

Yes, the United States effectively inherited the existing institution of slavery in the territory acquired through the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 from France (which had briefly reacquired it from Spain in 1800). The U.S. did not introduce slavery there as a new practice; it was already well-established under prior colonial rule, and the transfer preserved the property rights of slaveholders.

* French origins: France introduced chattel slavery to the Louisiana colony starting in the early 1700s, importing enslaved Africans (beginning around 1710) to support plantation agriculture, alongside some raids on Native American groups for labor. The Code Noir (1685) regulated slavery in French colonies, outlining rules for treatment, manumission, and rights of free people of color.

* Spanish period (1762–1800): Spain continued and expanded the transatlantic slave trade in the territory. By the time of the Purchase, there was a significant population of enslaved Africans, especially in the lower Mississippi Valley (present-day Louisiana), along with free people of color. Spain had banned enslavement of Native Americans in 1769, but some mixed-descent individuals remained in bondage.

* Brief French return (1800–1803): Napoleon reacquired Louisiana from Spain via the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso but never fully reimposed control on a large scale. His broader plans for a New World empire (including using Louisiana to supply Saint-Domingue/Haiti) collapsed due to the successful Haitian Revolution (a massive slave rebellion that led to Haiti's independence in 1804) and disease among French troops. Napoleon restored slavery in other French colonies in 1802 but sold Louisiana before deeply reasserting it there.

At the time of the Purchase, slavery was a functioning economic and social institution in parts of the territory, particularly around New Orleans and agricultural areas. The Purchase doubled the size of the U.S. and brought in a diverse population that included thousands of enslaved people.

The 1803 treaty (signed April 30, 1803) made no direct mention of slavery or its abolition. Key relevant language came in Article III:

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible according to the principles of the federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all these rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property and the Religion which they profess."

In the legal and social context of the era, enslaved people were treated as property under colonial (and later U.S.) law. Protecting "property" rights thus meant the U.S. recognized and upheld existing claims to enslaved individuals. President Thomas Jefferson and Congress had no intention of ending slavery in the acquired lands; they focused on governance, citizenship for free inhabitants (including free people of color in some cases), and eventual statehood.

* Temporary restrictions on importing new slaves into the Orleans Territory (except those brought by migrating owners), but these were quickly weakened or removed due to local opposition.

* The territory (later split into the Orleans and Louisiana Districts) adopted laws similar to those in southern U.S. states while incorporating some French/Spanish precedents. Slavery expanded significantly post-Purchase, fueled by the cotton gin, sugar plantations, and the domestic slave trade. New Orleans became a major slave-trading hub.

The Purchase did not "create" slavery in the region but integrated an existing slave society into the U.S., exacerbating sectional tensions over whether new states carved from the territory would allow slavery. This contributed to debates leading to the Missouri Compromise (1820), the expansion of the domestic slave trade, and ultimately tensions culminating in the American Civil War. Parts of the territory (e.g., future Missouri) already had some slaveholders; lower Louisiana had many more.

In short: The U.S. acquired a territory where slavery was a longstanding colonial practice under France (and Spain). By guaranteeing property rights and incorporating the inhabitants without disrupting the institution, the U.S. inherited and then expanded slavery there under American law and governance. The Haitian Revolution indirectly enabled the sale by derailing Napoleon's plans, creating an ironic link between the end of slavery in one former French colony and its reinforcement in another.

I know with absolute certainty people like you excuse bad decisions.

I never advocated suicide. That’s a straight up lie from you.

With compromise we had slavery for another 80 odd years and had a much nastier Civil War with much better guns to finally end it.

Without compromise we probably still win the Revolution War, since France’s help was the most important factor in that and France probably still signs on even if some of the states are on the wrong side. And then either we conquer those states in the Revolution and they don’t get slaves. Or they stay British colonies and we probably wind up taking them in the War of 1812.

Lots of people die doing the right thing. We generally call them heroes and give them statues. The right thing is hard. Ending slavery then would have been hard. Would have made the Revolution harder. Maybe leads to an immediate Civil War, or a slightly weaker first America with fewer stripes in the flag. But would have been the right call. The simple fact is declaring a self evident truth that all men are created equal, except in these state, was the height of hypocrisy, and just kicked all the negative side effect of ending slavery down the road the better part of a century, where we got to pay a much higher price.

"We did chicken out. Because we left it to the state."

That line of thinking is because you hate state-level action and accept the leftist line of thinking that the only kind of valid action is national-level.

Our Founders did not adopt such a terribly flawed line of thinking. State action was and actually to this day still is the most valid form of action. Most governmental actions today are done but through usurpation, not through Constitutional delegation. The list of Art.1 Sec. 8 actions is remarkably small. Voting for example is not nationalized. Education for example has been usurped since 1979, but not delegated constitutionally. If you want to talk about chickens exuding fear, we are the ones afraid to abolish the Department of Education.(off topic, I know.)

Back to slavery, when Pennsylvania and NY and Massachusetts and the rest (individually) abolished slavery, our founders were rightfully very proud of these actions both for selfish reasons if they happened to be involved, as well as in the aggregate larger picture of what positive it meant for the country's future when neighbor states did such things. The Founders did not "chicken out", they made choices that they believed were correct at the time, which were in fact bold actions at that time, and that over time remained looking correct because abolition was in fact happening. The abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania was a bold action, there was no exuding of fear. The abolition of slavery in NY was a bold action. It was not chicken, it was not fearful.

"Accept that the Founders were human, and could, and in fact DID, make mistakes."

I do accept that concept of the Founders being flawed humans, what I do not accept is that this item belongs on said list. I think they did the best they could when they had a superpower Empire on their backs forcing slavery down their throats. Given all available options and determined to keep 13 intact, they made the only and the optimum choice.

You are not correct on this, as you would gladly tear the 13 apart.

"13 colonies only won because of France. 10 colonies still would have had France. They’d have won."

Well, thank you for stating this concept plainly that you are fine with ripping the 13 apart and for that we will have to agree to disagree.

I do not think less than 13 colonies(any number) would have won because the Empire would have used those southern-most colonies simply as permanent military bases to launch ever-attacks in perpetuity.

It is only a point of disagreement which we could get stuck on, we each know where we stand on this one.

"You've a misplaced focus, trying to "prove" anything to a Leftist."

I don't care about them on the left. Look at how many conservatives do not even know their history. And there are plenty of non-leftists/non-conservatives will are willing to listen - a good 40-80% of the country is worth talking to.

"As to slave ownership, and the practice of slaving as operated by Portugal, the UK, the Dutch, every nation of which I am aware has had that practice on its soil throughout history."

Yes, and as I said the U.S. inherited slavery from those slave empires. But it was Americans before even declaring Independence who were first in line trying to abolish it. We weren't the first to successfully get the job done, but we were in fact the first to attempt the job as well as the first to get many parts of the job done.

To someone who does know their history, saying the U.S. inherited slavery from either France or Britain or the Netherlands or Spain should not be controversial in the slightest and it is not controversial once they think about it. Yet I can blow up any room stating a simple fact.

Everybody - EVERYBODY wants to blame (instead) the United States for slavery and that desire to blame the U.S. is, in fact, egregious historical malpractice.

Don't need to use big caps to make your argument.

As to "conservatives do not even know their history," you seem among them.

"There does not appear to be a consensus on the number of men who signed the U.S. Constitution—or, more broadly, were delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787—and who were also enslavers.
"According to the Gilder Lehrman Institute for American History, 'about 25' delegates enslaved people, of the 55 who attended the convention's proceedings in Philadelphia. The Constitutional Rights Foundation asserts that 17 of the 55 delegates were enslavers and together held about 1,400 enslaved people. In addition to identifying James Madison as an enslaver, Signers of the Constitution, published in 1976 by the National Park Service, notes that 11 other signers 'owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms,' and then it names them: Richard Bassett, John Blair, William Blount, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and George Washington. It is also known that Benjamin Franklin enslaved people."
Source: How Many of the Signers of the U.S. Constitution Were Enslavers? Jeff Wallenfeldt [ Britannica Editors ]

Benjamin Franklin is an interesting figure for so many reasons, but among them is that when young he owned slaves and, in his life, freed them to become an abolitionist.

Some additional history for you:

"By 1830, there were 3,775 black (including mixed-race) slaveholders in the South who owned a total of 12,760 slaves; the Southern slave population at the time was around 2.3 million people. 80% of the black slaveholders were located in Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland."
Source: African-American slave owners
"The enslavement of Black people among Cherokees began after it was introduced by Europeans in the 17th century. Forms of captivity already existed among the tribe, but the slavery of African-descended people was especially exploitive and dehumanizing. By the early 1800s, elite, mostly bicultural Cherokees had begun to adopt the ideas and lifestyle of American plantation owners, including the use of Black slaves in agriculture."
Source: Slavery in Cherokee Nation

As to "EVERYBODY wants to blame (instead) the United States," that is simple bunkum.

Want to continue to play at being a historian, then cite some source(s) which shows that none of out Founding Fathers -- whose work and gifts I greatly respect today -- owned slaves. I'll wait.

Until you find some actual historical source(s), I will reiterate "every nation of which I am aware has had that practice on its soil throughout history."

---- "One of the many fake left wing history items that far too many conservatives buy into is that owning a slave automatically makes someone a racist. You appear to be one of them."

Straw man argument. I did not use the term 'racist' in this exchange of comments. You did.

Some more hotlinks:

"Despite having been a slaveholder for 56 years, George Washington struggled with the institution of slavery and wrote of his desire to end the practice. At the end of his life, Washington made the decision to free all of the enslaved people he owned in his 1799 will."
10 Facts About Washington & Slavery Mount Vernon
"While it is often difficult to use historical records to learn about the enslaved individuals who worked in the White House, Thomas Jefferson's presidency is an exception. He was a meticulous record keeper, tracking everything from the daily weather to his wine purchases and dinner guests. In addition to his record keeping, he also wrote thousands of letters during his lifetime, and used a letter copying device called a polygraph to copy letters for his personal records. The enslaved people working in the White House appear in these records frequently, allowing the opportunity to piece together their life stories with perhaps greater historical detail and precision than enslaved individuals who worked during other presidential administrations."
The Enslaved Household of President Thomas Jefferson White House Historical Association
Much documentation and historical background on Charles Pinckney, and the plantations, War Hall Plantation, 8 February 1771 , Fairfield Plantation, 1773 , and Estate Inventory, 1787
People Enslaved by the Pinckneys

Despite our Founding Fathers details of their lives, I honor them for the work they left us. That work was furthered in the 13th and 14th amendments, in the 1865-1868 time frame. You should read them.

I reiterate "every nation of which I am aware has had that practice on its soil throughout history."

Our Founders were first in abolition. In reference to a comment I made earlier I guess I gotta overwhelm the thread with it. I'll start with Massachusetts since nothing organized exists before it on the timeline.

The First Efforts to Limit the African Slave Trade Arise in the American Revolution: Part 1 of 3, The New England Colonies

The next year(1768), in March, the Boston town meeting again expressed its support of such a bill.[30] The Whig firebrand from Boston and one of the leaders of the resistance to British authority, Samuel Adams, then introduced a bill in the Massachusetts House of Representatives that went even further than prohibiting the importation of slaves. It was entitled, “A Bill to prevent the unwarrantable and unusual practice or custom of enslaving Mankind in this Province, and the importation of slaves into the same.”[31]
The House, not ready for an outright ban, as an alternative, appointed a committee to provide for taxing the importation of slaves as a measure to discourage slave importations into the colony.[32] But the bill died in the more conservative upper chamber, the Council. According to Samuel Dexter, who strongly supported the bill, “Had it passed both houses,” the royal governor, Francis Bernard, “would not have signed it. The duty was laid high

This is 1768 and the abolitionists, the first anywhere in the new world, are trying to pass abolitionist bills. They knew the crown creature governor would veto it.

Finally, in early March 1774, both houses passed a bill to prohibit slave imports. Governor Hutchinson lumped this bill with others as inconsistent with the “authority of the King and Parliament” and refused to sign it.

A negative and a veto and a refusal to sign are all relatively analogous. Here is what English abolitionist Richard Price wrote many years later of efforts such as this:

It is not the fault of the Colonies that they have among them so many of these unhappy people. They have made laws to prohibit the importation of them; but these laws have always had a negative put upon them here, because of their tendency to hurt our Negro trade. - Richard Price, "Observations on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War with America" page 42

"Until you find some actual historical source(s), I will reiterate "every nation of which I am aware has had that practice on its soil throughout history.""

Your reiteration is unfounded. There's one place, and I can point to it. There's one place where slavery was not the norm at that time, and it was on the Governor's desk. The Founding Generation put it there. And the crown vetoed it.

That right there is American Exceptionalism. We're the ones who put it on the desk and we did it in 1768.

You do not know your history, you've let the left convince you to have unrealistically negative view points about the Founders.

In a more general sense, I'll end with two really good history books (since you asked) highlighting both early abolitionism in general and the other focuses more exclusively on the anti-slavery viewpoints of many of the Founders. I had these transformed into audio in part because so many people refuse to read and then they get stuck on their outdated views of our Founding that was taught to them by school indoctrination.

Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808)

The fact is, America was first in transatlantic abolitionism. We were first. We own it, in origination abolitionism is our property. And yes, too, many of the Founding Fathers were abolitionists.

An Historical Research Respecting the Opinions of the Founders of the Republic on Negroes as Slaves, as Citizens, and as Soldiers

We as conservatives really need to stop trusting the progressives and the progressive historiography on the Founding generation that casts them as racists. Its simply not true.

Aside from promoting your audiobook project, one notes the date of that text --- "Read before the Massachusetts historcal soceity, August 14, 1862." [ spelling from the individual posting on that thread ]

So, about a century after the founding ot these United States of America. And as to the "Mary S. Locke ( - fl.1901)," her life date is noted, as is the Boston, Ginn and Company publisher.

As to Massachusetts, since you want to "start with" it:

"Enslavement in Massachusetts began shortly after the Pequot War of 1637. In July, Governor John Winthrop recorded the price the Pequots paid for resisting White settlers from Massachusetts and Connecticut: "We had now slain and taken, in all, some seven hundred. We sent fifteen of the boys and two women to Bermuda by Mr. [William] Pierce…." Pierce ended up off-course and landed in Providence Isle, a Puritan colony in the Bahamas."
Source: Slavery and Law in 17th Century Massachusetts National Park Service.
"In 1780, when the Massachusetts Constitution went into effect, slavery was legal in the Commonwealth. However, during the years 1781 to 1783, in three related cases known today as "the Quock Walker case," the Supreme Judicial Court applied the principle of judicial review to abolish slavery. In doing so, the Court held that laws and customs that sanctioned slavery were incompatible with the new state constitution. In the words of then-Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing: "[S]lavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges [in the constitution] wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence." This section introduces the legal status of slavery in Massachusetts prior to 1780, the Mum Bett case of 1781, and the Quock Walker case."
Source: Massachusetts Constitution and the Abolition of Slavery State of Massachusetts website
"Slavery persisted in Massachusetts through most of the eighteenth century. While individual enslaved people had successfully sued for freedom, and groups had petitioned the colonial government for freedom (although without success; see "The Struggle for Freedom" section of this website for more information), the institution of slavery was not legally abolished until the 1780s, in direct response to the new Massachusetts Constitution. Two court battles in particular, first the case of Brom & Bett v. John Ashley, Esq., and then a series of trials relating to Quock Walker, led to this monumental ruling."
Source: The Legal End of Slavery in Massachusetts Massachusetts Historical Society, founded in 1791, website

I'll reiterate: "...every nation of which I am aware has had that practice on its soil throughout history."

As to "race" and "racist" and "racism," you injected the terms into the thread.

On the topic of your source: Anti-slavery in America from the Introduction of African Slaves to the Prohibition of the Slave Trade (1619-1808) ---

Here is a link to the reprinted text, courtesy of Archive.org as a PDF.

Anti-Slavery in America Radcliffe College Monographs No. 11, Mary Stoughton Locke, A.M., Peter Smith [ publisher ], Gloucester, Mass., 1965 [ reprint from 1901 ]

Among her early sources is a interesting name -- in his "Plan of William Usselinx, 1624". One of his plans as a "founding father of the Dutch West India Company," and was Dutch by birth, and promoted immigration to the 'colonies" including the taking of colonies from Spain and Portugal, His failed 'colonies' in the American colonies were New Netherland and New Sweden, which were what are now a portion of Delaware and New York State.

In Locke's text and as she writes in 1901 of the late 1600s, "Slavery, though probably prohibited in the original Swedish settlements, was undoubtedly soon introduced." [ page 10 ]

Slavery and sentiments against slavery existed together in these times and places. And throughout the world, lest one forget that slavery exists to this very day.

"Aside from promoting your audiobook project"

I do it because everybody wants to eat the left's propaganda and hate the Founders; including conservatives. If at first people refuse to read written pages, and then also they're in refusal to listen to convenient audio, well at least I tried and gave it my best shot. I made it easy for you. You still refused. I made it free and open source, it costs no money. You still refused. What more could I do?

It's laughable and hypocritical for people first to demand "read history books" and then when they are faced with history books after demanding it, books that prove the Founders were correct they'll choose what they already previously knew no matter how incorrect it is. And still claim they were correct on top of it after being proven wrong. Wow.

"Despite our Founding Fathers details of their lives, I honor them for the work they left us"

No. Not on abolitionism you most certainly do not. You dishonor the Founding Fathers greatly, acutely. People do actively want to hate the Founding Fathers and yes, use of the word racist was my usage but it is what you're getting at and simply leaving that word unsaid. That's why I used the analogy of a john deer farm tractor.

"I'll reiterate"

Your reiteration was already proven false. All you're doing now is relying on the fact that the Empire forced slavery on the United States against its will using the power of the crown veto pen as your vehicle for smearing the Founding Fathers with fake history.

We can agree to disagree if you like but it is simply not true that slavery was everywhere, it is an unacceptable meme, undeserving of standing without challenge. The Founding Generation put abolitionist bills on the governors desk and the crown vetoed it.

No, slavery not everywhere. Slavery was not on the governor's desk. Abolitionism was on the governor's desk. Which is why among other things, since you claim to love history books,

In The Legion of Liberty(1857), one of many things published by the American Anti-Slavery Society, they quoted the Founding Fathers including those who owned slaves. Why would they do this? It's because that was printed before progressives took over the schools and indoctrinated me and indoctrinated you and indoctrinated everybody else with these false "they owned slaves" historiographical narratives. Frederick Douglass also frequently wrote of his high regard for the Founders and Jefferson in particular. Its the same. Douglass lived and died before the progressives historiography was created.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Legion_of_Liberty_and_Force_of_Truth/OGljAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP24

Starting on page 24 they quote Luther Martin, Elbridge Gerry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Franklin, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Madison, Hamliton, and many other Founders and also topics such as Virginia generally and the Declaration of Independence. Notice the slave owners?

I know you won't read it because you've already got your mind made up but yes, I am correct. I can point to history books, historians, and historical works far outside of the reach of progressivism because guess what:

Progressives are liars. America was first in transatlantic abolitionism, we invented that, we deserve credit for it, many of the Founders were abolitionists, progressives are liars, and the Founding Fathers were correct on even also the topic of slavery. That America was first in line in Abolitionism is in/of itself proof of American Exceptionalism.

"As to Massachusetts, since you want to "start with" it"

I want to start with it because I want to continue on with Pennsylvania and then later, Virginia. The Founding Generation were correct and they were the very first abolitionists anywhere in the transatlantic world. No European country can post numbers as early as this.

In fact, abolitionism was all over many of the 13 colonies just prior to the war. It was only not successful because of the king's evil and wicked veto pen, as the 13 colonies were not free countries. There was always a ceiling for which subordinate colonies could achieve any modicum of abolitionism with the dominant empire being a slave empire. In short, it could never realistically happen. But that's not a smear of the Founders who did try - it's all the slave empire's fault in that regard. Equality for All: Colonial American Attempts to Curtail Slavery https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4375871/posts

You can accuse me of many things, but you can't say I'm not reading history.

Progressives are liars. That is always my first step. Every other step follows as a step 2 to this step 1: progressives are liars.

Your earlier comment from post 107:

"You've a misplaced focus, trying to "prove" anything to a Leftist."

The biggest challenge I face is conservatives. Not leftists. Conservatives refuse to let go of their hatreds of the Founding Fathers. I'm a little busy to even get over to any leftists so I rarely have any discussions at all of this type with leftists.

This one singular book is not the point. The entirety of how the U.S. inherited slavery, we did not create it, is the point. That said, here is how slavery was opposed in Pennsylvania prior to the war.

The Pennsylvanian abolitionists, led by Anthony Benezet with help from Benjamin Rush cooked up a plan.

As noted by Jackson in "Let This Voice Be Heard", Benjamin Rush and particularly Benezet plotted a scheme to get the Pennsylvania legislature to pass an abolitionist bill.

Rush succumbed to the pleas of Benezet and agreed to write the pamphlet, but only under the condition of anonymity. Benezet wanted to lobby for the bill "to put a more complete stop to the importation of Negro slaves into the province." Page 121

Jackson notes:

The campaign had proven quite successful: on February 26, 1773, the Pennsylvania Act became law. In the following years, legislatures passed other such acts in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware.

All the while in these years, Benezet and Rush are reaching out to guys like Ben Franklin and Granville Sharp over in England.

That's a part of how the early abolitionists in England knew the king was vetoing our laws, we simply wrote to them and told them. We can't abolish slavery over here in America, the king over there is a tyrant! is what they would have been saying.

The reality is that since the colonists lived under the boot of a slave empire, any abolition had a hard ceiling limit of maybe 10 or 20% anyways. Independence would always be required for a full 100% abolition. It was a slave empire. They never would've gotten anything but heavy tariffs or partial slave trade abolitions. That was the crown limit. The crown made way too much $$$ on slavery, follow the money. The money goes to the crown.

For all of Benezet's and Rush's hard work in trying to get something, anything abolitionist in nature while living under the heavy weight of a slave empire, ultimately their lobbied law was vetoed. That doesn't change the existence of abolitionism though.

Jackson continued:

The antislavery circuit ran through this handful of men: Wesley, Rush, Franklin, Sharp, and Benezet above all.

In 1772, 1773, 1774, and especially 1775 when the first transatlantic abolition society was founded(not in Britain) the beating heart of the abolitionist movement was there in Pennsylvania, and Anthony Benezet was the head of the snake. It had strength in Massachusetts and other colonies, but Pennsylvania was the beacon.

When that abolitionist society was founded in 1775 they had already been plotting and scheming in their smoke filled rooms ways of doing pressure campaigns, already getting laws passed, already publishing pamphlets, and more. The founding of the society was just the officiation of it all.

Here is what king george said about his slave money:

Our islands must be defended even at the risk of an invasion of this island. If we lose our sugar islands, it will be impossible to raise money to continue the war and then no peace can be obtained but such a one as He that gave one to Europe in 1763 never can subscribe to

Page 433

--- "I know you won't read it because you've already got your mind made up ....."

Poor you. Some of us read, and herein quote:

"Emancipation to be effectual must be general throughout the union; all compensation is encouragement except on condition that the system be annihilated. Were Maryland, for instance to declare itself a free state, most of her colored inhabitants would be torn from their relations and homes, where proximity and intercourse with the free states is some check to cruelty, and domestic employment and old attachment renders their condition comparatively endurable, to be driven to the plantations of the south west, to be whipped and starved to death on those human slaughter grounds; it would be, to lessen the evil in its mitigated, and extend it in its aggravated forms. The haughty ancient dominion, the mother of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, the Randolphs, and other staunch abolitionists, is compelled to obtain a livelihood by this noble means, the breeding of slaves for the human shambles, the trafficing in the nerves, hearts, and souls of her own colored sons and daughters, in whose veins frequently courses her best blood, and thus save 'the slaves from advertising for runaway masters.' And while this domestic slave trade is the staple business of the South, the foreign still rages with similar horrors, which only the extinction of its cause, the market for slaves, can suppress. Since nothing but evil can possibly flow either directly or remotely from this polluted source, slavery; instead of shutting the eyes like the idiot, frightened at his own shadov, and hiding the head in the dust like the stupid ostrich before destruction, why not grapple with the mortal foe like men, like freemen!"
Source: The legion of liberty! : and force of truth, containing the thoughts, words, and deeds of some prominent apostles, champions and martyrs by Ames, Julius Rubens, 1801-1850; Lundy, Benjamin, 1789-1839 [ Available as a PDF for free donwload, courtesy of Archive.org. ]

There were both slavery and the trend towards abolition of slavery from before the beginning of this nation. For there to have been, as above, "emancipation" from slavery, there had to have been slavery. Slaves were owned by some whites, some few "freemen" blacks. and by some in the Cherokee nation which definitely predates this nation's founding.

--- "Conservatives refuse to let go of their hatreds of the Founding Fathers."

So you introduce the discussion of "race" into our exchange, and now "hatred." I did not express either. Your Cathy Newman gambit is tedious.

I clearly expressed my admiration for our Funding Fathers." To whit and verbatim: "Despite our Founding Fathers details of their lives, I honor them for the work they left us."

--- "As noted by Jackson in 'Let This Voice Be Heard' ---

Maurice Jackson, 2010 pub date, available on Amazon, 'print length' 400 pages.

In an interview Jackson tells of his interests in history and more. From it:

[ Question: Why did you choose history as your career? ] "Well, I had been a community organizer all my life; I had been one of the top leaders of the Communist Party of the United States. I joined when I was barely out of my teens, and I stayed some years, and at a certain point in my life, I knew I it was time to leave that organization. I had to give up politics as it wasn't dealing with or solving the problems of the times. I was a supporter of perestroikaand glasnostand the party rejected it, so I left. When it supported the massacre in Tiananmen Square, I spoke out against it – but few others did, so I just left."
Source: The Former Community Organizer and Activist Who Became a Historian History News Network, 13 May 2018

I read. I remain skeptical. I do not express hate, nor am a racist as you've suggested.

But I am a conservative, who honors our Founding Fathers, and more especially their work as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. and beyond. Even though some of them held slaves, and some who held slave freed them, and others did not.

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.