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

Grok ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

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.

Historical Context of Slavery in the Louisiana Territory

* 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 Louisiana Purchase Treaty and Its Provisions

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.

Early U.S. actions included:

* 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.

Broader Impacts

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.

[ProgressingAmerica]

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

Called it exactly, I did. There is a "poor", I agree, but it is not me. I think this discussion has run its course considering what is quoted and not highlighted earlier, there is nothing forward for us. Here is that exact same paragraph:

"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!"

Hah so George Washington is being labeled an abolitionist - Jefferson is being labeled an abolitionist - Madison, Henry, and the Randolphs are all being labeled abolitionists and this is being done by abolitionists themselves. I told you beforehand exactly why I liked this book, so my focus on these names cannot be a surprise to you. This blockquote was your pull quote, I didn't go retrieve this paragraph. You retrieved it.

And....

You missed it, the lede. You. Missed. It. That's some towering, towering love of the Founding Fathers right there. Big, big, bigly love. Massive love oh yeah high in the sky. The kind of love that never misses a complement of the Founders for sure.

Look at that block quoted paragraph. For real. I marvel at it.

This is just dreadful. Its facepalm worthy.

This discussion has indeed fully run its course, we do not need to move any farther forward. There's nothing forward on replies. You can have a wonderful day.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

You cite a "a community organizer" and "one of the top leaders of the Communist Party of the United States," as a historical source in comment # 118.

You highlight a phrase by Ames (1801-1850) and Lundy (1789-1839) as proof that those who owned slaves according to most normative source were "staunch abolitionists," which is poor methodology at best. Given that President Washington died in 1799, one of your sources' authors was ten years old and the other hadn't been born.

Our Library of Congress observes, which original source material:

"Around the time he made his will, Washington made this list of enslaved people at Mount Vernon. It includes people he owned outright, people who belonged to the estate of Martha Washington's first husband (known as “dower slaves”), and people he rented from a neighbor. In his will, Washington was only able to free the people he owned outright. This list includes a ten-year-old boy at Dogue Run Farm named Roger, the son of a woman named Grace. He is probably the same child whose birth is recorded in the farm report of March 6, 1790."

Source: A List of the Enslaved People at Mount Vernon, 1799 Library of Congress.

One might admire and honor -- and I do -- President Washington, and still acknowledge this.

History is replete with complications. Simplicity in telling a complicated history is not a virtue, and neither is your using a "a community organizer" and "one of the top leaders of the Communist Party of the United States" as among your sources. His -- Jackson's -- citing of the " Act of February 26, 1773, and your duplication of his "work" in your Comment # 118 suggests you haven't examined the act, but accept an avowed one-time Communist's description of it. It had and still has nothing to do with abolition of slavery.

Jackson and you miss the "Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery - March 1, 1780." also in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania's Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery was the most conservative of the laws emancipating slaves that were passed in northern states between 1780 and 1804. The law freed few slaves immediately. Although Pennsylvanians could no longer legally import slaves; they could buy and sell those who had been registered. Indeed, some pro-slavery residents of counties along the Delaware and Maryland borders violated the law and continued to buy slaves from those states until the law was tightened in l788. In 1781, conservative assemblymen attempted to extend the registration dead line and to re-enslave those whom courts had declared free because their owners had failed to register them in time. Simultaneously, they attempted also to repeal the 1780 Gradual Abolition Act. Only with great effort were slavery's opponents able to defeat these attempted revisions.

Source: Source: An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery - March 1, 1780

A historian confronts complexities and inconsistencies, citing original sources as can be found. And so I repeat, " Despite our Founding Fathers details of their lives, I honor them for the work they left us."

Many American men who themselves owned slaves worked towards the abolition of slavery. It is a complicated story.

[ProgressingAmerica]

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

Again, no, you do not honor them for their work. You are actively looking for ways to dishonor this aspect of the Founding Fathers' achievements - the early abolitionism that they participated in.

"A historian confronts complexities and inconsistencies, citing original sources as can be found."

That's not what we have you here doing though. You're looking for ways to either make me the topic or make authors the topic so you can try to find a safe space that prevents you from discussing anything you find inconvenient.

At this point you've moved heaven and earth to try to get away from the fact that slavery prior to 1803 in French territories might possibly be France's fault and even came up with a bizarre theory that somehow acknowledging France's fault in those years prior to American purchase is somehow a thing that can be used to smear American conservatives some hundreds of years later.

I can tell you one thing its not my priority to preserve your fragility in your safe spaces. I was hoping to try to wind down my discussion with you in the last post but I can see you would prefer to persist.

I am ok with that.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Wait a second. I see what you did here.

"You cite a "a community organizer" and "one of the top leaders of the Communist Party of the United States," as a historical source in comment # 118."

You lie, you omitted a very specific key word.

Yes, I have cited Thomas Sowell before, who was a former communist. I also have cited many times David Horowitz, another former communist. I am also looking forward to doing audio books from former communists once their works hit the public domain due to copyright expiration.

You omitted the word "former". You lie.

Besides all of that it would not matter in the slightest. What was being said about Anthony Benezet can be proven using the original sources anyways. You want to position yourself on some high horse in an ivory tower then you should understand about "the information checks out". With Sowell, Horowitz and others, the information checks out. So what.

It is very bizarre that Anthony Benezet of all people has become the sorest spot for you evoking the most snooty of all your responses, but you don't have to get all mad about the fact that you keep getting proven wrong by making a fool out of yourself.

You omitted a very specific key word like you're an ABCDisney journalist. The word "former".

You lied. You straight up lied.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

"Safe spaces." "Racism." "Hatred." "Actionable history." "Fragility." Your vocabulary, entered into this thread by you and you alone.

--- To "make me the topic." You betcha, champ. You are now the topic.

If the Library of Congress and original documents, Mount Vernon and Monticello original documents are not your thing, while citing "one of the top leaders of the Communist Party of the United States," you sure as heck are the topic.

--- "Look at how many conservatives do not even know their history."

--- "....far too many conservatives buy into is that owning a slave automatically makes someone a racist. You appear to be one of them."

--- "...everybody wants to eat the left's propaganda and hate the Founders; including conservatives...."

--- "The biggest challenge I face is conservatives. Not leftists. Conservatives refuse to let go of their hatreds of the Founding Fathers."

" think people like you resent that the U.S. ever existed in the first place and wish the U.S. was never formed."

--- "....their fault, not our fault."

You discuss/debate like one of those progressives you oppose, all the while using the moniker you choose, "ProgressingAmerica."

Neither America, as a nation, nor France or others, as nations, can be approached with any legality which is "actionable." Certainly not from the 1700s. That would be Nikole Hannah-Jones' baseless 'reparations' argument.

You reject original sources, cite a Communist progressive among your Grok-begun thread, and put words in others' mouths. You assert second- and third-rate sources prove original documents are somehow historically wrong -- for you.

You accuse conservatives on this thread as expressing hatred and racism. You are most assuredly now the topic.

Again, I honor our Founding Fathers of these United States of America for their brilliant work, even as they -- a consistent theological notion for the Deists and Theists of that time -- had their faults.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"You discuss/debate like one of those progressives you oppose"

Well, that's because you are a progressive. You claim to love the Founding fathers all the while any time I use original source material such as King George III's personal papers or well researched historical works such as George Livermore's history book which is contained at the Library of Congress, it is ignored.

I know how to sniff out statist such as yourself.

And I caught you in a straight up lie, omitting words. I say it all the time, progressivism is America's Cancer, and you sir are a lying progressive. Anything that doesn't fit your personal convenience you'll just simply ignore so that you can construct your own reality.

The fact is, you have been exposed. You do not love the Founding Fathers. If you did you would honor all of their work and not just that which makes you personally happy.

If you don't want to be treated like a progressive, stop being a progressive. It's really extraordinarily simple.

You have a progressive agenda. You got exposed. Deal with it.

[ProgressingAmerica]

You want more original sources? Fine. Here is the wonderful work that Virginia did standing up against the crown's slavery, to the best ability they had anyways, as a subordinate colony incapable of controlling their own destiny. This is a part of something I posted recently which works well here. I happen to believe you are at this point a dishonest broker, but I already mentioned I would talk about PA, MA, and VA anyways.

---

Unlike Massachusetts, where the veto came from a crown creature puppet governor, and Pennsylvania, where the veto came from a crown creature board of trade or some other crown creature, Virginia's veto came directly from the hand of the King himself, from numero uno, the Big Cheese, the final boss, King George III of the British Empire.

Henings provides a similar resource to Hansard with respect to debates and laws that came out of early Virginia. In Henings, we find the law itself, from 1760. It is terribly boring reading, luckily, not long reading.

The King's response is simple. Hold my beer, the king says. I'll take care of this myself, the king says. The king did this because he wanted to send a MESSAGE. Knock the abolitionist crap off, you're gonna have slaves and you're gonna like it because it makes us money. The king wrote (conclusion):

It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported, imposed by the last mentioned law, shall be further continued or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony, payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769, shall upon any pretense be increased or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.

Virginia: (§939); Dec. 10, 1770.

The full text of the King's slavery veto

That's a threat, talking about pain etc. The Virginian Burgesses responds (1772) and calls out the King and gets it right.

The Importation of Slaves into the Colonies from the Coast of Africa hath long been considered as a Trade of great Inhumanity, and, under its present Encouragement, we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very Existence of your Majesty’s American Dominions.

We are sensible that some of your Majesty’s Subjects in Great Britain may reap Emoluments from this Sort of Traffick, but when we consider that it greatly retards the Settlement of the Colonies with more useful Inhabitants, and may in Time, have the most destructive Influence, we presume to hope that the Interest of a few will be disregarded when placed in Competition with the Security and Happiness of such Numbers of your Majesty’s dutiful and loyal Subjects.

Just a few years later in 1779 wrote a private letter to Lord Sandwich admitting the stark accuracy of this rebuke, admitting that losing the slavery revenue would be less desirable than an actual invasion of Britain itself. It was the Empire, everybody knew it. It's documented in their own words. The Empire made the money.

But note before we get too far away, the Virginians were motivated in part by humanitarianism, the great Inhumanity of the system of slavery imposed by the Empire for the Empire's money.

So having abolitionist laws vetoed by the crown caused many in the colonies to get really upset, so much so that it is found in the text of the Virginia Constitution (1776). They wrote:

https://www.colonialwilliamsburg.org/discover/sources/revolutionary-documents/the-virginia-constitution-of-1776/

By prompting our negroes to rise in arms against us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law

The Virginians weren't stupid. First the king put all those slaves there and then after the fact, weaponized those same very slaves against the colonists. That is an extraordinarily evil thing to do. That's why this complaint is also in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence.

They vetoed our laws. The Empire forced slavery on the United States.

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-XJcYxRziE

We are putting things like this on YouTube and into video expressly to make it harder for persons such as yourself who are tied at the hip with The 1619 Project denigrating U.S. history in favor of foreign powers.

As a whole, America in 1776 did support this part of the Declaration, it was pretty much just those two colonies(S.C./G.A.) which were dominated more by West Indians/Barbadians and not so much Americans that abstained from supporting that clause of the original draft.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

---- " ...persons such as yourself who are tied at the hip with The 1619 Project denigrating U.S. history in favor of foreign powers."

Oh, look. You changed to a parallel gambit. Back to our Founders, men of fine ideas even with faults. And another original source.

"This indenture witnesseth that I Thomas Jefferson of the county of Albemarle have manumitted and made free Robert Hemings, son of Betty Hemmings: so that in future he shall be free and of free condition, with all his goods and chattels and shall be discharged of all obligation of bondage or servitude whatsoever: and that neither myself, my heirs executors or administrators shall have any right to exact from him hereafter any services or duties whatsoever. In witness whereof I have put my seal to this present deed of manumission. Given in Albemarle this twenty fourth day of December one thousand seven hundred and ninety four."

Deed of Manumission for Robert Hemings, 24 December 1794 Founders Online, Archives.gov

There is no "denigrating U.S. history" when original sources are cited. Merely the historical facts of a time in history.

For the record, the anti-capitalist 1619 project is bullshit. Trying to tie me to them is also.

And yet again, I honor our Founding Fathers of these United States of America for their brilliant work, even as they -- a consistent theological notion for the Deists and Theists of that time -- had their faults.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Our Library of Congress observes"

As a typical progressive, look at how deceitful your aim is in your tactical use of "original sources" as your only goal is to go back into the typical 1619 Project trope of "oh they owned slaves so ergo." We all know how people like you use this information as a weapon.

I simply do not believe that. The Founders were not racists, you will not trap me in that place. I know that is the trap you want to set, I'm not buying into it. I'm not going to smear the Founding Fathers. That's all you.

You are not that crafty, you are not that smart to trap me in that trope. "Oh but I never used the word racist!" What a dishonest position you're creating for yourself. This is such bad faith kabuki acting.

And I'm not going to let go of the fact that you simply lied. From my perspective your whole schtick right from the beginning is deeply suspicious and the way you "use" sources while they are "original sources" it is in the very typical way that The 1619 Project uses them.

Dishonestly.

I am so sick and tired of people like you all you can ever say, "they owned slaves". Wake up. Just wake up. There is more the story than that.

You make arguments from a position of bad faith. Very bad faith.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"There is no "denigrating U.S. history" when original sources are cited."

Its your personal use as a progressive of said original sources plus omission to demonize the Founders which is where the denigration resides, just like your 1619 Project. Its the exact same tactics one for one.

You cannot bring yourself to say the phrase The Abolitionist Founding Fathers, because you are making arguments in bad faith and do not honor the entirety of the Founders.

Your post at 122 highlights this terrible nature:

"A historian confronts complexities"

That is progressive claptrap 101. Your argument of "oh they owned slaves so its so complex" does not make you look wise and even handed. You have omitted the abolitionism.

There is no complexity. The abolitionism and the prior empires makes it simple. Very simple.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

---- "The Abolitionist Founding Fathers"

Did a word search for the exact phrase. Came up with one response from two different search engines, You. You used the exact phrase five times in the one blogspot article:

That time Charlie Kirk recognized abolitionism among the Founders

ProgressingAmerica's blogspot, 18 September 2025.

And from it in your own words, "Benjamin Franklin was a slave owning abolitionist Founding Father. "

In this thread, you cited your own other FR threads, your "About" cites your own LibraVox items and your exact phrase results in finding your own blogspot.

Recommended reading: A Note on Slavery and the American Founding Matthew Spalding, at the Heritage Foundation.

And yet again, Mister "There-is-no-complexity", I honor our Founding Fathers of these United States of America for their brilliant work, even as they -- a consistent theological notion for the Deists and Theists of that time -- had their faults.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"Did a word search for the exact phrase"

Seems this discussion is settled. You cannot bring yourself to say the phrase The Abolitionist Founding Fathers even though many of them were abolitionists. You are making arguments in bad faith and do not honor the entirety of the Founders lives and accomplishments. Good think you do not claim to honor the entirety of their accomplishments, you treat the Founding Fathers as if they are a salad bar. Oh I'll have a little of this but I will not dare touch that one.

"you cited your own"

I am happy to wear the badge of honor related to the Founding Fathers, no matter how you want to try to manipulate and twist it into some sort of a bad thing. It is very bizarre. I will cite my own and continue to cite my own because we as Americans have much to learn from our wonderful Founders.

But since you've come back full circle to it and now you're sniffing around, maybe you should just go dip your curiosity into the FReeRepublic key word freeperbookclub

https://freerepublic.com/tag/freeperbookclub/index?tab=articles

There you will find audio books of my choosing for production/completion including works by (or about) William Wilberforce, Friedrich Hayek, Calvin Coolidge, Noah Webster, Benjamin Rush, Anthony Benezet, Edward Bernays, "Biographical Sketches of the Signers of the Declaration of American Independence", Patrick Henry, Ludwig von Mises, General Frederick William von Steuben, and Mourts' Relation.(Mourt's seems completely out of field but it is an original source honoring the history of Thanksgiving at Plymouth Plantation) Oh and also The Pioneer Mothers of America, which is about our Founding Mothers.

You won't have an immediate way to determine the difference so I'll tell you, in that list of books from freeperbookclub that I didn't choose but adopted after others had nominated or abandoned working on them include Mercy Otis Warren, A Dialog between the Head and Heart, by Thomas Jefferson, Sorel's "Reflections on Violence", and George Livermore's history book was also an adoption IIRC.

The remainders of the works there I didn't have any involvement with at all but they are wonderful works which can produce a more educated populace. Those include John Milton, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Calvin Coolidge(2x), John Marshall/George Washington, Lewis and Clarke, and The Federalist Papers.

It is probably worth honorably mentioning works which I had absolutely no involvement at all in the hard work of creating and editing so I do not deserve credit for these three, but I did put some thoughts of encouragement out as to these would be wonderful works that should and perhaps must be created. Those three works are:

1) The Capture of Fort William and Mary
2) John Hancock's biographical book
3) Senator Joseph McCarthy's book "America's Retreat from Victory; The Story of George Catlett Marshall, by Sen. Joe McCarthy"

Yes, I have been very busy. Again I'll remind you. All of these audio books are for free and open source in the public domain.

I would tell you you need to listen to every last one of them but whatever you do you. These are the works which I think will produce a more educated American and will result in a higher quality voter.

[ProgressingAmerica]

All of these audio books are for free and open source in the public domain.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

“Safe spaces.” “Racism.” “Hatred.” “Actionable history.” “Fragility.” Your vocabulary, entered into this thread by you and you alone.
-— To “make me the topic.” -— You betcha, champ.

[x]

France abolished slavery in 1794 and Napoleon reintroduced it in 1802. The next year he sold us the Louisiana territory. If we wanted to make it all free territory we could have. We would have had to make terms with the slaveholders, I suppose, but we weren’t under any obligation to France to maintain an institution that they had only just reintroduced.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Clearly at this point you only want to troll and cause mayhem and pick fights, you’ve even dropped the salad bar Founding Fathers concept.

How about we just shake hands and that will be the end of it.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

---- "How about we just shake hands and that will be the end of it."

Not a chance, bucko.

"...progressive claptrap 101...." “Safe spaces.” “Racism.” “Hatred.” "...you simply lied...." “Actionable history.” “Fragility.” "Liar." "...to demonize the Founders...." "I am so sick and tired of people like you...." "You have a progressive agenda. You got exposed." "You are actively looking for ways to dishonor this aspect of the Founding Fathers' achievements...." "...a racist. You appear to be one of them."

My favorite --- "The biggest challenge I face is conservatives."

Your vocabulary entered into this thread by you and you alone.

[ProgressingAmerica]

You are a progressive, there’s no need for you to be sour grapes that I accurately called you out on being the progressive you are using your own language weaponized against you.

I appreciate these reminders.

Have a wonderful day.

[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

---- "You are a progressive, there's no need for you to be sour grapes that I accurately called you out on being the progressive you are using your own language weaponized against you."

Summary of your name-calling:

"...progressive claptrap 101...."
“Safe spaces.”
“Racism.” “Hatred.”
"...you simply lied...."
“Actionable history.”
“Fragility.”
"Liar."
"...to demonize the Founders...."
"I am so sick and tired of people like you...."
"You have a progressive agenda. You got exposed."
"You are actively looking for ways to dishonor this aspect of the Founding Fathers' achievements...."
"...a racist. You appear to be one of them."
"The biggest challenge I face is conservatives."

And now, "You are a progressive...."

Have a day.

And now, a quote from my About ----

God bless the Trump-Vance administration, and God bless these United States of America.