Some American History most public schools ignore. (Page 4): ...

Glaucon

Brian Devon wrote:

I will take a stab at what Jefferson might have be... (show quote)

Skyhook

Brian Devon wrote:

I will take a stab at what Jefferson might have be... (show quote)

I am an extremely wealthy man. Most of my wealth comes from buying and selling Africans, as if they were cattle. I could care less about the psychological scars I leave when I separate parent from child, husband from wife, at the s***e auctions.

Brian, how about documenting that claim- the claim Jefferson was a *s***e trader*.

saltwind 78 Loc: Murrells Inlet, South Carolina

Sounds like US history to me. Actually Jefferson was a study in conflicting ideas. He knew that s***ery was evil, but had s***es. I think that ideas about s***ery changed between 1780 and 1850. It became more entrenched as time went on, especially after the invention of the cotton gin.

Glaucon

Skyhook wrote:

I am an extremely wealthy man. Most of my wealth comes from buying and selling Africans, as if they were cattle. I could care less about the psychological scars I leave when I separate parent from child, husband from wife, at the s***e auctions.

Brian, how about documenting that claim- the claim Jefferson was a *s***e trader*.

I think Brian points out that Jefferson was a human being as I hope all of us are. no one is prefect even Reagan.

Brian's comments are consistent with history. How do you disagree with what he wrote? Do you believe Jefferson owned s***es?

Glaucon

saltwind 78 wrote:

Sounds like US history to me. Actually Jefferson was a study in conflicting ideas. He knew that s***ery was evil, but had s***es. I think that ideas about s***ery changed between 1780 and 1850. It became more entrenched as time went on, especially after the invention of the cotton gin.

I believe we are all "studies in conflicting ideas." That is a human condition. Jefferson was no exception. Good thinking and accurate history.

vernon

you took a stab but you missed.from what ive read you would have been a torie.im sure you would have been benedict arnold.as far as s***ery, had you lived at that time im sure you would have had s***es but they would have been white.but you just h**e people having freedoms especially gun rights.just remember if someone has kicked in your door and is k*****g or raping your family the cops are 10min away but you will be dead in 5 min

Brian Devon wrote:

I will take a stab at what Jefferson might have be... (show quote)

Glaucon

Glaucon wrote:

I think Brian points out that Jefferson was a human being as I hope all of us are. no one is prefect even Reagan.

Brian's comments are consistent with history. How do you disagree with what he wrote? Do you believe Jefferson owned s***es?

Jefferson bought and sold s***es. Would that make him a s***e trader? I think it would.

vernon

Glaucon wrote:

Jefferson bought and sold s***es. Would that make him a s***e trader? I think it would.

prove it

Glaucon

vernon wrote:

prove it

Prove he didn't. Historians believe he did. The records prove he did. This seems to be a no brainer. Please don't take that as an insult.

Skyhook

Glaucon wrote:

Jefferson bought and sold s***es. Would that make him a s***e trader? I think it would.

Relying on modern history (revised and re-adjusted *facts*) might make one overlook that for the time he existed, Jefferson was not a s***e dealer even though his plantation held s***es-- which he willed emancipated upon his death. To judge his behavior in the 1700s with the thinking of 21st century adjusted values is disingenuous at best.

The next thing we might see here is the erroneous claim that all states signing onto the Constitution were in favor of s***ery.

Glaucon

Skyhook wrote:

Relying on modern history (revised and re-adjusted *facts*) might make one overlook that for the time he existed, Jefferson was not a s***e dealer even though his plantation held s***es-- which he willed emancipated upon his death. To judge his behavior in the 1700s with the thinking of 21st century adjusted values is disingenuous at best.

The next thing we might see here is the erroneous claim that all states signing onto the Constitution were in favor of s***ery.

I think it is important not to overlook the time in history in which Jefferson bought, sold, and held s***es. It would not be reasonable to hold him to the standards of today. However. one who sells s***es, buys s***es, holds s***es and has a child with a s***e might be called a s***e trader. To claim otherwise, is to do some serious twisting of language, facts, and times.

Skyhook suggests that some erroneous claims might be made at some time in the future by some people for some reason. That, of course, is meaningless speculation.

vernon

what historians and what records i know he held s***es but that dosent pprove he was a s***e trader

Glaucon wrote:

Prove he didn't. Historians believe he did. The records prove he did. This seems to be a no brainer. Please don't take that as an insult.

Glaucon

docwill wrote:

Must regretfully decline your invitation to the self-f**gellation party.

Please review for non-sequiturs and false moral equivalence.

Please review for pompous, patronizing, self aggrandizing deflection and B.S.

vernon

i thaught the 13 colonies all had s***ery.

Skyhook wrote:

Relying on modern history (revised and re-adjusted *facts*) might make one overlook that for the time he existed, Jefferson was not a s***e dealer even though his plantation held s***es-- which he willed emancipated upon his death. To judge his behavior in the 1700s with the thinking of 21st century adjusted values is disingenuous at best.

The next thing we might see here is the erroneous claim that all states signing onto the Constitution were in favor of s***ery.

dbleach3

Does anyone serious think that if you dig a hole in Idaho and take your guns with you that you could beat the American army if they decide to take all your liberties away? Seriously? Will your AR or AK stop the air forces bombs. Or is just the thinking of David Koresh?

I think WE, the states, still have the National Guard, or has this president retired it.