Posted on 02/29/2008 12:58:25 PM PST by Rebeleye
(Representative) Brown says it would give motorists a way to show pride in their heritage, but that flag represents a heritage of treason, bigotry, hostility, division and an overall ugly time in American history. No way should his plate proposal become No. 110.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
Answer: I’m guessing d. could be a. I’ve never seen it before.
‘You said: “Still didn’t make slavery ‘right’ only legal.
That seems to be your understanding of the intent of my commentary, but you are wrong.’
That wasn’t my understanding of your commentary. I’d like to think that you see the inherent evil of slavery. My point falls within the context of my earlier statement of less than stellar moral acts by the citizens of this country in times past.
‘But since you brought it up, you wouldn’t think that a newly elected chief officer would start a war over an issue that was protected by the Constitution. That would be unforgivable.’
Agreed, but I don’t think that is why the war started.
According to English professor Terry Meyers, the College has a lot of explaining to do about its associations with slavery.
In an upcoming article for the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, titled “A First Look at the Worst,” Meyers says that the College used slave labor to construct the President’s House, the Brafferton and the Wren Building. It also bought slaves with money from the state legislature. These slaves worked on plantations, Meyers argues, to fund scholarships for young men who were economically barred from coming to the institution.
Nor was it a rarity for the College to rent or auction off its slaves. Source
Meyers's article is apparently another version of the second article I linked to. If you followed that link you'd have seen this:
The early master builders were brought from England, but local contractors for the Wren Building supplied the laborers, who included, noted Lounsbury, two of President James Blair’s slaves.
We are in the dark about a lot of things that happened in the past. Hence my hesitation in coming to a conclusion. But so far, it does look like Brown wasn't the only college or university to use slave labor in constructing its first building or to have close ties to slave trading and slaveowning in its early years.
Stand watie? Learn something? Surely you jest.
How would you recognize the truth?
I read what you post and then assume the opposite is true?
From your post # 41: “Your examples in your interesting test show hypocrisy on the part of the North if slavery was the issue.”
And thank you for the two compliments.....one, that you liked the test, and two, that you realized the point and are in agreement.
Although I do not agree that the elimination of slavery was anything near the motivating factor of those that had the power to start the war, I would suggest that its elimination became the national rationalization for the carnage and desecration of both property and the Constitution.
Thank you for a very cordial and interesting exchange.
First you say...”We are in the dark about a lot of things that happened in the past. Hence my hesitation in coming to a conclusion”.
But did you really hesitate? Of course not.
Then you said: “Brown wasn't the only college or university to use slave labor in constructing its first building”.
Interesting didactic, but factually challenged as it relates to William and Mary.
And before you run off and think that you have facts...you only have conclusions.
First, your “authority”, Mr. Terry L. Meyers is an english professor, not a historian. The papers he reports to have discovered provide no proof.
Then he quotes about your recently discredited source, Lounsbury the architect, as...”An architectural historian at Colonial Williamsburg, Carl Lounsbury, has recently speculated that the older buildings on campus were probably built with slave labor...”
Speculated? That is about as valid as that term paper you quoted several months ago to try to make a point, where in the student simply submitted and did not have a peer review.
Very lame.
Why don't you go ahead and write the College of Charleston and let's learn a little.
‘That passage is a direct quote from Harriet Beecher Stowe’s postscript in her book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. I think you would agree that the reputation of the novel is antithesis to this quote, and represents the uninformed hypocrisy of most that think they know the meaning of the novel.’
I’ll admit to never reading that novel.
‘Thank you for a very cordial and interesting exchange’
You’re welcome.
Well, here's Brown University being upfront and honest about the role of slavery in their universities history, and you don't give them credit for that.
One version of Meyers's paper -- the one I linked to in my original post -- is here. He says, as I quoted in my last post: "The early master builders were brought from England, but local contractors for the Wren Building supplied the laborers, who included, noted Lounsbury, two of President James Blair’s slaves."
But William and Mary wasn't the only university in the South to use slaves in construction of their earliest buildings. For example, there's the University of North Carolina:
Using census records, we have documented the ownership of slaves by several of the contractors and subcontractors for the antebellum buildings. Other sources, examples of which are included in this section, confirm the use of slave labor by some of the contractors in the construction of the buildings.
...
OLD EAST (Original Construction)
From University Papers #40005 (connect to finding aid).
19 July 1793. Plan of Old East. On 19 July 1793 the Building Committee of the Board of Trustees contracted with James Patterson of Chatham County to construct the university's first building. The contract is on the verso of this plan, and it specifies "the Building to be (96) Ninety Six feet (7) Seven Inches in Length, (40) forty feet one Inch and a half in width, two storys in height . . . Eight rooms on a floor with a Chimney to each Room . . . the Sum to be given for finishing the said Building . . . is the Sum of two thousand five hundred pounds."
18 August 1795. James Patterson to John Haywood. Patterson writes to John Haywood, secretary-treasurer of the Board of Trustees, to complain that he has not received the final payment for the work on Old East. Recounting the problems he had during the construction, he explains that he proposed painting the roof before the scaffolding was taken down but was forbidden to do so. Once the scaffolding was down, he "was ordered to Paint the Roof and had to Make two Ladders 44 feet Long to Reach the Roof and too Hanging Do 28 feet Long to Reach the Length of the Rafters ... and Risk My own Slaves to Such Jeopardy ... the Least Slip of Hand or foot would have Cost them their Lives and Me a Valuable Servant."
There's also documentation for the University of Virginia. I don't know if it relates to the very earliest building, but the evidence is there.
I don't doubt that slave labor may also have been used in the construction of other Northern universities, but it's pretty clear that the same is true of Southern institutions as well.
Setting up a strawman, there x? You know that is not the point.
You said:......"One version of Meyers’s paper — the one I linked to in my original post — is here. He says, as I quoted in my last post: “The early master builders were brought from England, but local contractors for the Wren Building supplied the laborers, who included, noted Lounsbury, two of President James Blair’s slaves.”
You keep quoting Terry Meyers. He does not have any first hand documentation at all. Do you realize the maze of confusion that Meyers is using to set up that speculation as having some sort of relevance?
Well, if you will check the footnote from the paragraph you cite, that is #3, he does not have the actual documentation of the point that you think is so important, and have posted and re-posted. Get it through your head that he does not have first hand proof but quotes one James D. Kornwulf, "So Good A Design: The Colonial Campus of William and Mary".
If you do an internet search for Kornwulf's work, you can read his quotes on the construction isssue, you will find that he does not have any first hand information either.
Interestingly, he then refers you to an alledged quote from another source (getting frustrated here at the convolutions?) Earl C. Hastings, Jr., and David Hastings in their work, A Pitiless Rain: The Battle of Williamsburg, 1862.
However if you dig even deeper, you will find that even that book is not recognized as a fundamental source tool.
The peer review of this work was done by one Michael B. Chesson , Department of History, University of Massachusetts-Boston, who had this to say about the work of Hastings:
..."the book bears many of the marks of a rush job and does not meet the publisher's usual high standards.
If you read on, the reviewer points out a number of errors, mis-representations, and false contentions.
Would you want to base your reputation on a quote from this book? No, I think not.
So, esentially you still have no proof, just suppostion, quotes, re-quotes, assumptions, conclusions, and blather..........the usual from you, sir.
How is citing one book for a fact in one sentence "basing one's reputation" on anything? If you're concerned about this, see if Meyers cited the right page and if the Hastings got their facts right. But really your quibble has nothing at all to do with what we were discussing.
..."the book bears many of the marks of a rush job and does not meet the publisher's usual high standards.
It helps if you quote the complete sentence:
The research, thesis, and conclusions of A Pitiless Rain are persuasive, but the book bears many of the marks of a rush job and does not meet the publisher's usual high standards.
Chesson's complaining about the kind of technical errors amateur historians make, but he's not attacking the book or its conclusions.
I guess you're still ticked off about that wretched DiLorenzo. Maybe Walter Williams too. But really, if writing what they've written hasn't destroyed their careers there's no reason for Meyers or the Hastings to fear for anything they've written either.
Setting up a strawman, there x? You know that is not the point.
I know nothing of the kind. Your quiz was set up to establish that Northerners were hypocritical or dishonest about slavery. Here you have an institution, Brown University, that is honest and upfront about the role of slaves, slave owners, and slave traders in its history and you try to single it out as worse than other institutions that haven't been as concerned or as diligent in researching the role of slavery in their own past.
Brown's really gone out in front on this. And they had existing records that indicated the role of slavery. The Wren Building, the oldest building at the College of William and Mary, was destroyed by fire at least three times. Perhaps the records haven't survived. Perhaps their record keepers didn't bother to name the slaves who worked on their buildings since payment went to the masters. We don't even know if Christopher Wren actually designed the building that has been named after him. So there's a lot to discover.
William and Mary hasn't investigated the question of slavery to anything like the degree that Brown has. Go back to an 1874 history of the college. It doesn't even mention slavery. Maybe there really were no slaves involved in building CWM's structures, but I'll wait until they've looked into this at least as deeply as Brown has.
And what about those links I posted to information about UVA and UNC?
I have provided you documentation that the primary source of your assertion about the College of William and Mary was found to be discredited.
Instead of looking into that, you spend a couple of days posting all over the place to cover your error.
There is nothing more to be said. You really ought to check into your assumptions, and if proved wrong, just admit it.
How so "wrong"? Brown wasn't the only school that slave labor helped build. That was true of UVA and UNC. I can't say for certain that that was true of of the College of William and Mary as well, but it was certainly possible, maybe even likely.
We don't have all the evidence yet. Skilled workers were brought over from England to work on the early buildings. But among the contractors for labor there were slaveowners. It wouldn't be any surprise if their slaves did some work on the Wren Building, as was common practice at the time.
There is nothing more to be said.
I've certainly gotten tired of this nonsense. This is all a lot of trouble over your retarded quiz. But still, you haven't addressed the evidence about the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina.
That essentially summarizes all of your points.
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.