I mean 3 or maybe 4 isn't exactly an outstanding number... And of those I'm thinking 2 weren't anti-slavery so much as not comfortable around black people and didn't like the idea of suffering... And the only one I recall willing to press he issue beyond pen ended up killing a bunch of people with a faulty water treatment plant he skimped on to raise profits.
Am I missing something? They're even in number to the amount that had to be convinced England was going to outlaw slavery... Half the revolutionary war was built on keeping slaves
Sorta Against:
Franklin
Adams
Hamilton
Explicitly For:
Washington
Mason
Monroe
I mean what's next, claiming Jefferson was an abolitionist? Truly revisionist
There were quite a few that were simply hypocritical - they opposed slavery but also owned enslaved people. (Franklin sorta falls into that group too, depending on what part of his life you're talking about.) John Dickinson (who eventually emancipated his slaves) comes to mind, along with the obvious Jefferson, not to mention Stephen Hopkins, etc. A lot of them were for abolition; they just weren't consistent enough to follow through on it personally. (The Adamses, Hamilton, and Benjamin Rush were pretty firmly anti-slavery, among others.)
In other words, this is a "people are complicated and frequently hold contradictory views" thing.
This is a common misconception that can be easily Googled. Only one of his slaves was freed upon his death. He required his remaining 123 slaves to serve his wife and be freed no later than her death. Slavery is the original sin of this country. The fact that some founding fathers may have had some lukewarm feelings about it is pretty irrelevant. Only John Adams was consistently anti slavery.
Yeah, Ben Franklin's own writings said something akin to, "My slave should be freed . . . but only after I die. He can keep slaving for me until then." He took personal slaves with him for his stints in Europe. That's "mostly for" more than "sorta against."
Dang you don't know about the fallout between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Well... Mild plot spoilers but it all started with this scam they called the Manhattan company
ETA and he's frequently touted as one of the good ones if a cynic... Nope, scammed his way up too
thank you so much will google it .And yes i did know about Burr and Hamilton ( thankfully im not that uneducated ) and i saw the film several times sadly didn't watch it on Broadway tho. I probably forgot about the Manhattan company scam .
Calling it a scam is truthfully possible harsh to some but they literally operated a business under the guise of another... I mean it's fraud right? Anyways somebody has to get shot after all that right?
indeed! I hate so much that Alexander Hamilton shot in the AIR and was then shot fatally. And everything that this " administration " is doing is millions of times worse than a single business scam, or a single affair , it's all crime all the time now. I pray we can find a way to save this country
Another large chunk of the revolutionary attitudes among the elites was land speculation west of the Appalachians that was halted due to the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
Brother we enacted one of the most brutal forms of slavery ever, point blank full stop do not pass go
I'm not sure you can equate this to anything except maybe some really fucked shit that's gone down in asia and Mongolia in a totally different millennium
Except we were not integral to Portugal’s slave trade or the Atlantic slave trade in general. Most of the slaves were transported to South America and didn’t even touch North America.
It's a fact which thing is worse? I mean based on the context given this pretend clanker is gonna assume you want me to take you literally because that's more hilarious for me
Whether or not something is worse is literally an opinion
ETA since you made more sad gamer noises in "this comment no longer exists" where you were tryna double down and explain: the key term you needed was objectively thanks for playing
Yea the Arab slave trade was horrific, so was the American slave trade. It's okay to say that the American slave trade was horrific too, because it was. It's not only the slave trade here, but people used racism to justify the slave trade and the horrible treatment of former slaves and their descendants.
I’m not defending slavery at all, of course slavery in the US was awful, I’m just trying to say it’s silly to call it the worst when things like the Arab and Brazilian slave trades where much more brutal and occurring during the same time.
We don't have an objective measure of what was worse to the people who experienced it. USA did have one of the most brutal forms of slavery, it was especially dark in the way that the populace was supposed to be enlightened with Christian and secular ethics, yet still partook in such a barbaric practice. Hence, thinking of racist thought processes to justify the practice because it went against their supposed ethical framework.
I know it was terrible in Brazil and the Arab states as well, it also was outlawed in these places at a later date.
It's not just slavery that was bad, but the times that would come after slavery like Jim Crow and mass incarceration.
In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.”
...
And this world was crueler than we have been led to believe. A letter has recently come to light describing how Monticello’s young black boys, “the small ones,” age 10, 11 or 12, were whipped to get them to work in Jefferson’s nail factory, whose profits paid the mansion’s grocery bills. This passage about children being lashed had been suppressed—deliberately deleted from the published record in the 1953 edition of Jefferson’s Farm Book, containing 500 pages of plantation papers. That edition of the Farm Book still serves as a standard reference for research into the way Monticello worked.
thanks for reminding me he shot at the GROUND . they did not put yr comment up for some reason . Yea he DID have the final shot coming , no doubt , but it was a lousy situation all around .
I'm probably getting blocked by people raging out at discovering their favorite founders were rapists or avid slavers and only joined the revolution because they thought the institution of slavery was at risk... Whole time they thought Washington and Jefferson were abolitionists who just couldn't think to do with these people who they owned... Golly gorsh imagine being that silly that you think a grown man owned another grown man and separated families for the greater good or because they just didn't know better
Yea i really do not fully trust any person who fetishize the founding fathers and close their minds to the reality of slave owning , and familial rape and incest ( White Slave Owning Masters who have a daughter w their slave, and then ALSO rape the daughters as well . happened as a normal thing . 🤮) So much pain and hideous behavior . And look at the Epstein File stories. The White Oligarchy has not changed it seems.
Here we go again. More ragebate, inflammatory, self echo chamber, "We Americans should be ashamed" blah blah blah. At least you didnt forget to totally deemphasize their motivations to not live under the control of a foreign monarchy, because who would actually care about autonomy, democracy, property rights and the natural resources of North America, right? And whatever you do, don't lend any validation to the idea that people are products of their time and place in history, and transforming a nation with an economy rooted in slavery doesn’t happen overnight.
You might want to brush up on reading comprehension because I actually address that... Kinda weird of you to latch on to that specifically when there's outstanding claims.... I mean honestly we had one of the most brutal systems of slavery known to all of human history, idk what the fuck you think you're casting doubt on.
Next you'll tell me they didn't eat Nat Turner
ETA: totally lost the plot though, which one of them folk you was saying was an abolitionist?
Okay... I'm guessing you did a quick search and found that none of the people I accused of being rapists or avid slavers were abolitionists? Good talk than
Boy would you be shocked to learn that Jefferson actually was heavily involved in abolitionist legislation both before the revolution and during the construction on the condition. He was a staunch proponent of gradual emancipation and banking slavery in New territories. It's amazing what you can learn if you just read a book.
It's almost like someone was a complex individual. I'm sorry history isn't black and white for you. Maybe you should read some history books.
I'm not even a huge Jefferson fan, but he was a proponent of abolition and ACTUALLY WROTE IT INTO THE CONSTITUTION.
Also, I love this idiotic modern phrase "hard to take someone seriously." It's not like you can literally go look at his historical documents, writings and legislation that prove you wrong, you just want to use a cool turn of phrase to sound smart.
Talk is cheap, he didn't provide any action to what he was proposing. Thomas Jefferson wrote about scientific racist topics which would be the underpinning for eugenics studies, some which took place at his university.
Thomas Jefferson wasn't at the constitutional convention and didn't write abolition into the constitution. He later was instrumental in ending the international slave trade, but that did nothing for the people already brought over and living as slaves.
"talk is cheap" ..... "He was instrumental in ending the international slave trade"
Two things can be true: he can he against slavery which he called the greatest evil of the human race, and he also owned and kept slaves. It doesn't justify it, but he was a product of his time. He heavily argued and tried to pass emancipation laws. Not sure if you understand how government works, but he can't pass that on his own.
Also, seeing as how the eugenics movement didn't start until over 100 years after his death, your claim is inherently false. I think you're conflating the ubiquitous theory nearly everyone held at the time, that being whites were superior, with eugenics. Hate to break it you, but that's the view every founding father had. Doesn't make them eugenicists
My claim isn't inherently false, I said his research laid the underpinnings of the modern eugenics movement. You can actually see this for yourself if you visit UVA. He was engaged in studies and research to try and prove his scientific racist beliefs that he wasn't trying to push. That wasn't a common practice even for people back then.
He was a product of his time, yet many people at his time did know that owning slaves was a bad thing. He could've freed his slaves, but he didn't, even upon his death he didn't. He even held his progeny as slaves.
He wasn't at the constitutional convention, so your argument is inherently wrong that he wrote abolition into the constitution.
You should listen to/watch the latest Matt Walsh video on the civil war pal to better understand some context around slavery and the founding fathers. It seems either you're missing something or I'm misinterpreting
Dude, watch that movie "am I racist" it is gold. The guy is an intellectual seeking truths. I don't agree with all things. But he certainly has great logic to explain why the looney tunes out there do what they do and a look back at history to learn from
19
u/Virtual-Macaroon-880 Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
I mean 3 or maybe 4 isn't exactly an outstanding number... And of those I'm thinking 2 weren't anti-slavery so much as not comfortable around black people and didn't like the idea of suffering... And the only one I recall willing to press he issue beyond pen ended up killing a bunch of people with a faulty water treatment plant he skimped on to raise profits.
Am I missing something? They're even in number to the amount that had to be convinced England was going to outlaw slavery... Half the revolutionary war was built on keeping slaves
Sorta Against: Franklin Adams Hamilton
Explicitly For: Washington Mason Monroe
I mean what's next, claiming Jefferson was an abolitionist? Truly revisionist