Are Our Children Not Essential? Failing the children of New York.

BY PHIL ORENSTEIN

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/02/our-children-are-essential-phil-orenstein/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

For 150 years New York City Public Schools have remained continuously open and undaunted by all manner of calamities and natural disasters. Throughout our history from the Spanish Flu of 1918, the Great Depression, two World Wars, Cold War panic, civil unrest, the terrorist attacks on Sept 11, 2001, to Hurricane Sandy, the schools have always been open.

Not until 2020 has New York had a governor, a mayor, and a political class during a time of crisis, who have so miserably failed the children of New York. They have put our children in harm’s way physically, emotionally and academically.  We do not know the full scope of the consequences of these failures on the part of our political leadership, but the closing of our schools for 10 months and likely longer can be considered one of the biggest scandals in the history of our country. It has already taken an enormous toll on a generation of our children suffering in remote-learning environments, sequestered on endless video games. The laundry list of physical, emotional and academic maladies affecting our children due to remote-learning include mental illness, suicide, sickness, depression, anxiety, weight gain, isolation, 10 months of squandered learning, and lost opportunities for academic and athletic scholarships.

It has taken an enormous toll on working and middle-class parents and their extended family as well. The balancing act that parents must perform is work, their child’s education, and the financial stability of their families. These challenges that parents face are simply devastating. Never has the pressure been so unevenly placed upon the family unit than it has today by New York politicians. 

The public heaved a big sigh of relief when teachers were classified as essential and went to the front of the line for Phase 1 of the vaccinations. We all thought that within a short span of time, we would see the beginning of the reopening of our schools and the return to normalcy.

Teachers who were in their 20’s went to the head of the line, in front of seniors and people with comorbidities. But the public was ok with it because teachers are essential to the education and development of our greatest asset in America, our children.

The public was willing to let the teachers go to the front of the line and were hopeful to see the light at the end of the remote-learning tunnel. But the hope soon turned to despair as we were conned once again. The bait and switch charade pulled off on the public was from a minor faction of teachers and the union leadership who are still balking about going back into the classroom. While teachers are considered essential in receiving preferential treatment, our children are an afterthought.

For 150 years, New York’s political leadership understood the prime importance and significance of a good education, to ensure successful outcomes for future generations of our children. In 2020, the world changed. Elected officials abdicated their responsibilities in government and leadership roles regarding the education of our children, and left it in the hands of union leaders and a few selfish interests.

The political con job they played on parents and their kids was in promoting their misleading narrative that the classroom environment is unsafe. While the city’s schools closed for 10 months, Catholic and private schools have effectively remained open, and the teachers are safely at work doing in-person learning. The CDC never recommended schools close, and the CDC Director said schools are 'one of the safest places' for kids during the pandemic. Catholic schools are already starting up their after-school sports programs to begin on March 1st. Our local and state elected officials have failed our children, our parents, our communities, and our country, and there will be dire consequences for all.

The torturous road of the pandemic is indeed one filled with many heartbreaks.  Our schools are central to a thriving society today and for future generations to come.  We offer some simple guidance for the days that lay ahead.  Vaccinations for teachers and school staff started in January. By the middle of April all personnel of the city’s Department of Education, should have been vaccinated.  The mayor, City Council, and DOE should require all teachers and staff to be back at work by April 15th.  Citywide information portals should clearly communicate the planned reopening so that everyone understands NYC schools are in fact fully opened five days a week with after-school activities.  The consequences for those civil service employees who fail to report to work is the implementation of the Taylor Law to enforce back-to-work orders. This is above and beyond the realm of politics, union contracts, and special interests, and once and for all, decisive action must be taken.

What has been going on since March of last year has been near criminal. Never before in the history of our country, has a government and its political leadership so forsaken our most cherished resource in the present and for the future of our country. Our children are essential.

Phil Orenstein is the president of the Queens Village Republican Club. Established in 1875, it is America’s oldest Republican Club  www.QVGOP.org. Historian, Jerry Matacotta, founder of History Seminar Series at Queensborough Community College was the advisor for this article. He worked 32 years for New York City Public Schools primarily teaching High School American History.

Tubman to Replace Old Hickory. Hard Left Agenda Moves Ahead

Tubman to Replace Old Hickory. Liberal Agenda Moves Ahead

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/tubman-to-replace-old-hickory-hard-left-agenda-move-ahead/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

It was a significant story that went unremarked because of the Biden regime’s assault on everything normal, and the Democrats’ paranoid delusions about former President Trump and the “insurrection” he supposedly led.

In late January, the regime announced plans to adorn the $20 bill with the image of Harriet Tubman, the Underground Railroad leader who did not, as popularly believed, lead hundreds of slaves out of the Deep South to freedom.

Still, the $20 must feature Tubman, not Andrew Jackson, a dusty relic of the old Republic.

Writing at Revolver.com, conservative scribe Scott Greer, formerly of the Daily Caller, helpfully reminded readers on Thursday that Biden’s Treasury workers will proceed with the plan that President Trump is accused of delaying.

“The Treasury Department is taking steps to resume efforts to put Harriet Tubman on the front of the new $20 notes,” Biden mouthpiece Jen Psaki said. “It’s important that our money reflect the history and diversity of our country.”

That isn’t, of course, the main reason Jackson has to go, as Greer explained, noting a screeching one-sentence indictment in the Washington Post:

Jackson was a notorious racist, a slaver who as president was responsible, among other things, for the Trail of Tears, in which thousands of Native Americans died as they were forcibly pushed west. Tubman, on the other hand, is one of the greatest heroes America has produced.

As Greer explained, the Postie who penned the piece didn’t bother telling readers why Tubman “is one of the greatest heroes America has produced.”

Greer directs readers to the real history of Tubman from historian James McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedomwho reviewed four books about Tubman for the New York Review of Books in 2004.

McPherson’s conclusion about the main “conductor” on the Underground Railroad — the network of secret meeting places and stash houses that escaping slaves followed from the South to freedom in the North — is this: Because Tubman’s story is largely based off oral histories, it is difficult to know the facts of her life, which has left her story open to embellishment as it was passed down over the years.

Tubman led perhaps five or six dozen slaves to freedom, a notable achievement, but others did more.

Tubman biographer Milton Sernett buried another myth, Greer wrote:

One of the most popular legends about Tubman is that she commanded a black regiment’s raid in South Carolina that destroyed Confederate outposts and freed hundreds of slaves. This would’ve made her the first female to command such an expedition in American history. The problem is that it’s “wishful thinking,” [Sernett says]. Sernett acknowledges she served as a nurse and scout for the Union, but was not a military commander. Sernett also argues that many of the famous quotes attributed to Tubman were not said by her. The retired historian says his thorough research led him to question much of what we claim to know about Tubman.

Not surprisingly, Greer reported, his remark that Tubman should not replace Jackson on the $20 bill invited the usual farrago of leftist hate.

Why Tubman Must Replace Jackson

As for Old Hickory, the Treasury Department didn’t put him on the $20 bill for no reason. He was a founding-generation American who fought in the War for Independence and was captured by the British at age 13. Because of Jackson’s courageous war on the money power that controlled the Second Bank of the United States — which precipitated an unsuccessful assassination attempt — the United States broke the shackles of central banking, at least until 1913 and the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. During these years without a central bank, Americans experienced unprecedented economic growth.

But he was also a white man, a slave-owner, and waged war against the Indians. And so a very real if imperfect American hero and symbol must be attacked and replaced, American history rewritten, to fit the new narrative.

A Deep Dive Into “Critical Social Justice” & How It Took Over the Humanities-New Discourses

An American-born author, mathematician, and political commentator, Dr. James Lindsay has written six books spanning a range of subjects including religion, the philosophy of science and postmodern theory. He is the founder of New Discourses and currently promoting his new book "Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody."

Why Schools Are Teaching Our Kids “Social Justice”

BY JAMES LINDSAY

SEE: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/10/schools-teaching-kids-social-justice/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Woke have a very specific conception of the world and a very specific mission that has everything to do with that conception. Most of us, going about our daily lives and getting hit with Critical Social Justice — the ideology that leads one to become “woke” — don’t understand this. We mistake what is, in fact, an entire worldview for a set of fringe ideas dealing with socially important issues like racism, sexism, and transgender rights. Most of us see “Wokeness,” in other words, as something that’s probably mostly good or, at worst, well-intentioned and benign.

When it comes to our children’s schools, then, many of us will conclude that it’s necessary and important in our modern, progressive world for our children to learn about these sorts of issues, and we trust our educators to communicate important truths about them so our kids can keep doing the good work of building a better society.

This kindly liberal view, borne from a combination of good intentions and being too busy to learn otherwise, misunderstands the Critical Social Justice ideology at the most fundamental level, however. It therefore completely misses the specific mission woke people—and woke educators—have for our society and our children. The crux of that mission is hiding in plain sight in the word “woke” itself, and it has everything to do with why we should be opposed to seeing these ideas featured in our educational system.

The mission of Critical Social Justice, to use its right name, is to “awaken” people to the so-called “realities” of systemic oppression in society, as it defines it—thus, “woke.” People who are woke are people who have been trained to see systemic oppression in a particular way, which has been outlined in an otherwise obscure branch of philosophy known as Critical Theory. Speaking formally, the Woke are people who have developed a “critical consciousness” about the identity-based systems of power that are alleged to permeate and define all of society, creating profound and almost intractable injustices that must be “disrupted and dismantled” to achieve “liberation.” The goal of “anti-racist,” “culturally aware,” and “social justice” approaches to education is to awaken a critical consciousness in our children so that they will grow up not to think critically but to think in terms of Critical Theories.

To understand why this isn’t just a problem but an incredibly alarming one requires understanding how the Critical Theories in Critical Social Justice see the world. That is, you have to understand what your kids will be “woke up” to in their classrooms.

To take the issue of race, Critical Race Theory begins with the assumption that racism is ordinary in our societies and present in all interactions and social and cultural phenomena, and it is up to the Critical Race Theorist—using a Woke critical consciousness—to “make it visible” and “call it out.” In Critical Race Theory, the question is not “did racism take place?” but rather, “how did racism manifest in that situation?”

Rather than learning how to do mathematics, then, your children will be taught to ask questions like how mathematics is used to maintain racial oppression—for it must, according to Critical Race Theory. This is precisely the sort of curriculum that we already see in the Ethnic Studies program in the state of Washington and its “ethnomathematics” project. Rather than focusing on the mechanics of mathematics, students will be taught to focus on the ways they can explore topics like racism and oppression through mathematics, or leaning on math as a foil that facilitates discussions on important topics—like “who it benefits” to focus on getting right answers in mathematics.

Other subjects will be similar, if not worse. A Critical Theory approach to studying American history will be dedicated to making students woke to all of the ways the United States, from its founding, has been an unjust, oppressive nation that systemically oppresses certain identity groups. This shouldn’t be understood to be part of a balanced program that reckons honestly with the darker aspects of our national past as framed against the liberal promises that eventually—and painfully—have won great freedom and equality to our diverse citizenry. It will be a sustained program of teaching our children how America is a horrible nation that has never been able to or even wanted to live up to its promise of all men having been created equally, as individuals. “Whiteness is property,” they will instruct, and that property is theft—slogans we have heard repeated as justifications for race-based riots throughout this ugly summer.

Indeed, many such programs will claim that the United States was founded intentionally on genocide, slavery, and a principle of white supremacy and anti-Blackness that has never been repaired. Its legacy is white privilege and white comfort that must be challenged at every opportunity if we are ever to achieve racial equity. Already, at least in the state of California, a proposed – although rejected – curriculum would teach these lessons not as history but as “hxrstory,” where “his” has been replaced by an explicitly “non-binary” formulation of “her,” so that maleness and cisheteronormativity won’t accidentally be centered in the term. (By the way, “his-story” isn’t even the genuine etymology of the word history, but Critical Theory looks for oppression hidden in unlikely symbols, even when it doesn’t make sense.)

Bringing Critical Social Justice into our educational systems is therefore not beneficent or benign. It is a deliberate attempt to try to program our children to think in an explicitly cynical, pessimistic, and falsely sociological way about all matters relevant to identity in every possible subject, including our history and even science and mathematics. The goal is to make our children woke, to give them a critical consciousness with which they will, unlike their parents, know that the point of understanding society is to change it in a very narrow and increasingly divisive way.

Editor’s Note: This article has been revised to clarify that a proposal to rename “history” “hxrstory” in California was rejected.

This article was originally published at Roca News.

_______________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theory/

AND: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/11/why-your-organization-should-not-do-diversity-training/

_______________________________________________________________________

COURSES IN SELF-PITY & "GRIEVANCE STUDIES" AT YOUR COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY

James Lindsay sits down with American Thought Leaders host Jan Jekielek to discuss Critical Social Justice, the Grievance Studies project, and neo-Marxism in education and culture at large.

From American Thought Leaders:

To “expose the political corruption that’s taken hold of the university,” James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose made headlines in 2018 with a series of hoax papers that were accepted in peer-reviewed journals. Since then, Lindsay has made it his life’s mission to understand the ideas and theories underpinning what they dubbed “grievance studies.” Just how are these identity-oriented academic fields rooted in deeply flawed methodologies? And how has neo-Marxism and what Lindsay recently named “critical social justice” permeated the education system in America? Lindsay documents his work on his website “New Discourses”, where a constantly updated “Social Justice Encyclopedia” can also be found.

Peter Boghossian: How Social Justice Silences - New Discourses

In October of 2019, we held a conference in the heart of London with the simple mission of starting to “Speak Truth to Social Justice,” a conversation that we can all plainly see now was, even by then, long overdue. Among the eight talks given that day to address the subject, Peter Boghossian addressed the important issue of the ways that the Social Justice ideology stifles free speech. In this passionate talk, he outlines many of the speech-stifling actions that have been made against himself and others when they have dared to speak up about something they believe in when it goes against the “prevailing moral orthodoxy.” For Boghossian, and now many of us, that moral orthodoxy is the ideology calling itself Critical Social Justice.

Boghossian outlines seven different ways that the Critical Social Justice ideology stifles free speech and discusses each with poignant examples. Its advocates call names. They brand unwanted speech as violence. They assert policies of “inclusion” that are meant only to allow viewpoints they agree with. When people who hold ideas that challenge their growing hegemony are invited to speak about those views, its advocates see to it that they’re disinvited. Speech is stifled further in institutional settings that take up “Bias Response Teams.” They also, quite famously now, engage in a bullying tactic reminiscent of the Cultural Revolution of China that goes by the name “cancel culture.” Lastly, they justify all of this through “idea laundering,” a process by which they provide false legitimacy to these ideas and the other tenets of their ideology by getting them published in their own corners of the academic literature and mainstream journalism. These seven methods combine to stifle speech and even free thought in an incredible fashion.

Join Dr. Boghossian as he walks you through these points, speaking truth to “Social Justice” and fighting back for freedom of speech and cognitive liberty.


Watch Peter Boghossian’s subsequent presentation from this conference here. The audio version of this presentation is available on SoundcloudApple PodcastsGoogle PlaySpotifyStitcher, and RSS.

___________________________________________________________________________

SEE ALSO FROM LIGHTHOUSE TRAILS RESEARCH: 

NEW BOOKLET: S is for Social Justice The Language of Today’s Cultural “Revolution”

https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=32824

NEW BOOKLET: Critical Race Theory, Southern Baptist Convention, and a Marxist “Solution” That Will Not Work

https://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=32684

ROBERT SPENCER VIDEO: RECLAIMING AMERICAN HISTORY FROM THE LEFT~WHY IT’S SO URGENT FOR EVERY AMERICAN TO BECOME WELL-VERSED IN AMERICAN HISTORY

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/09/robert-spencer-video-reclaiming-american-history-frontpagemagcom/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

[Please help us continue to bring you these vital perspectives on the news – perspectives that you won’t find anywhere else. Donate to the Freedom Center HERE.]

This video is brought to you by a Freedom Center-Glazov Gang collaboration on a new exclusive webinar series, Teach-Ins for the Twenty-First Century. Join us as some of the leading thinkers and pundits on the scene today discuss key issues related to the coronavirus pandemic and its ongoing implications, confronting the Left, the jihad terror threat, and much, much more. And make sure to ask your own questions of our experts.

Hosted by Anni Cyrus, producer of The Glazov Gang and Founder of Live Up To Freedom.

This new webinar features Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is the author of the new book, Rating America's Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster.

Robert discusses: Reclaiming American History From the Left, explaining Why it's so urgent for every American to become well-versed in American history.

Don't miss it!

And make sure to watch our three previous webinars with Will Johnson, Dov Hikind and Dr. Jason Hill.

Will Johnson: The State of America -- How the Left is accelerating full-steam ahead in the take-down of America.

2. Dov HikindAnti-Semitism in a Topsy Turvy World.

3. Dr. Jason Hill: What the Rioters Believe -- The Philosophy Underlying Today’s Social Unrest.

Subscribe to the Glazov Gang‘s YouTube Channel and follow us on Instagram: @JamieGlazov, Parler: @JamieGlazov and Twitter: @JamieGlazov.


 

COMMUNIST CHINESE GOVERNMENT COMBINES ‘TRACK AND TRACE’ CORONA SYSTEM WITH OPPRESSIVE SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE

Coming to America?

See the source image

Chinese Government Combines ‘Track and Trace’ Corona System With Social Credit Score

VIDEO: 

BY PAUL JOSEPH WATSON

SEE: https://www.infowars.com/chinese-government-combines-track-and-trace-corona-system-with-social-credit-score/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Communist government of China has combined its coronavirus ‘track and trace’ system with the country’s notorious social credit score.

As the Epoch Times’ Joshua Philipp explains, fears that the new COVID surveillance system would be used for “totalitarian social monitoring” are being realized in China.

“The local government of China’s Jiangsu province has launched a new social control system that combines the CCP’s health code program with the regime’s social credit system to create what they’re calling a civilization code,” Philipp reported.

The new system ranks each citizen via a “civilization score” and then places them in a category which determines whether they get priority access to services or are punished and restricted.

The new system represents an expansion of the social credit score and is being initially rolled out in the city of Suzhou and will apply to everyone over the age of 18.

Last year, we also highlighted how Chinese citizens would need to pass a facial recognition test to access the Internet in another expansion of the social credit score system.

In August 2019, the Communist state bragged about how it had prevented 2.5 million “discredited entities” from purchasing plane tickets and 90,000 people from buying high speed train tickets in the month of July alone.

As we document in the video below, the onerous social credit score system is literally designed to punish and socially ostracize dissidents who express controversial opinions.

In the age of social media de-platforming, an identical system is gradually being introduced in the west, where people who have been banned by social media networks for ‘offensive’ views are then also de-platformed by companies and banks.

 

TRUMP THREATENS FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS TEACHING 1619 PROJECT

See the source image

BY STEVEN NEILL

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/36981-trump-threatens-funding-for-schools-teaching-1619-project;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

President Trump appears to be fighting attempts by the Left to erase American history.

A Washington, D.C., working group called District of Columbia Facilities and Commemorative Expressions (DCFACES), formed by Mayor Muriel Bowser, released findings and recommendations for changes to city facility names on August 31. The group was tasked with determining how many of district-owned, or federal-owned, facilities bear the names of people “inconsistent with DC values and, in some way encouraged the oppression of African Americans and other communities of color or contributed to our long history of systemic racism.” Besides making recommendations to change the names of many D.C. schools, parks, and other public building, on page 22 of the report, DCFACES offered recommendations for the federal government to “remove, relocate or contextualize” a group of national memorials and monuments, including the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, the Christopher Columbus Fountain, and the Benjamin Franklin Statue.

The Trump administration reacted swiftly, with Interior Secretary David Bernhardt tweeting:

Following that, Trump responded to a tweet on September 6 about California implementing the New York Times’ 1619 Project in their public schools:

Trump stated at a press conference the following day:

I want people to know everything they can about our history. I am not a believer in cancel culture. If you don’t study the bad, it could happen again. I want it studied very, very carefully, and studied accurately. But we grew up with a certain history, and now they are trying to change our history, revisionist history. That’s why they want to take down our monuments, take down our statues. I saw something the other day which was absolutely horrendous -- the Washington Monument, they want to rename it the D.C. Committee, but the D.C. Committee is all Democrats. Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, I mean, we are talking about this is the big stuff now. This is the big stuff, and they want to rename it? They want to redesignate it? They want to take some down? No. We don’t do that. Never going to happen with me.

Reaction to Trump’s statements varied from support to resistance, with Nikole Hannah-Jones, the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalist responsible for the 1619 Project, responding with, “Do those concerns about cancel culture and McCarthyism and censorship only apply to the left or do they apply to the POTUS threatening to investigate schools for teaching American journalism? Silence is deafening here”

Further attacking Trump’s stance on the 1619 Project was Seth Cohen. In a piece written for Forbes, he stated:

On Sunday morning, President Trump tweeted an attack on the 1619 Project, threatening to withhold funding from California schools teaching the popular journalism project focused on the rise and impact of slavery in the United States. With his newest tweet, the President’s actions raise a troubling question:

Why is the Trump administration threatening to censor the way schools teach about the history of slavery and racism in the United States?

But perhaps most troubling of all, Trump’s tweet and the arguments of his administration and allies demonstrate a belief that history should be taught in a way that limits criticism of the United States. Further, Trump himself has shown that he is willing to take action to constructively censor those whose views of history conflict with those of the administration.

That’s not teaching history that is shaping national propaganda.

For those unfamiliar with the 1619 Project, it is a collection of essays, short fiction, and poems forming an “ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.”

The Project has received accolades from those who seem to be intent on rewriting American history, and significant criticism from those concerned with historical accuracy. For liberals, the Project helps unify their message that America is and always was a racist country. In the words of Nikole Hannah-Jones, “It is time for this country to pay its debt. It is time for reparations.”

Considering the 1619 Project’s deep-rooted historical inaccuracies, undisguised hatred of capitalism, embrace of celebrity and identity politics, President Trump is entirely correct to defund the Project and its rewriting of American history; it is an attack on America itself. As George Orwell wrote in 1984: “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”

 

DEMOCRAT WASHINGTON, D.C. MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER CONSIDERS REMOVING MONUMENTS, MEMORIALS

Sec. David Bernhardt: Trump Admin WILL DEFEND Monuments And Statues

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/01/d-c-mayor-considers-removing-washington-monument-jefferson-memorial-n876816;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

After the protests and riots following the death of George Floyd in police custody, Mayor Muriel Bowser (D-Washington, D.C.) brought together a commission to consider striking various alleged symbols of oppression from the nation’s capital city. The commission issued its recommendations on Tuesday and if Washington, D.C. acts upon them, Americans may see national landmarks like the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial removed completely.

“We believe strongly that all District of Columbia owned public spaces, facilities and commemorative works should only honor those individuals who exemplified those values such as equity, opportunity, and diversity that DC residents hold dear,” the committee’s chairs, Bowser advisor Beverly Perry and public library director Richard Reyes-Gavilan, wrote in a letter introducing the report.

The commission analyzed historical figures commemorated in public monuments according to eight “DC values”: accessibility, diversity, equity, livability, opportunity, prosperity, resilience, and safety. They examined whether such figures participated in slavery, supported “systemic racism,” supported the “oppression of persons of color and/or women,” was a member of “any supremacist organization,” or violated the D.C. Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on “age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin.”

If commission members so desired, they could have suggested removing monuments to almost every political figure in American life until about 30 seconds ago. After all, many Democrats now condemn the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal tax dollars from funding abortion) as racist, so according to the ever-more-stringent standards of wokeness, a certain Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. may find himself #canceled. After all, a certain Barack Hussein Obama opposed “marriage equality” when he won the presidential election in 2008. Perhaps D.C. should prevent any monuments to America’s first black president because he violated the D.C. Human Rights Act.

Iconic D.C. Monuments Vandalized in Riots: ‘Do Black Vets Count?’

Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial among the damned

In any case, the commission decided that only 153 of the 1,330 individuals commemorated in the names of schools, parks, government buildings, and monuments are “problematic” enough to warrant excision from the public consciousness. How generous of them!

Among the damned are Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Zachary Taylor, and Woodrow Wilson; Declaration of Independence signers Benjamin Franklin and George Mason; inventor Alexander Graham Bell (he was a racist supporter of eugenics); and Francis Scott Key, author of the national anthem.

The commission suggested that the federal government “remove, relocate, or contextualize” statues of Christopher Columbus, Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, Albert Pike, and George Washington; and to similarly remove memorials commemorating Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Francis Griffith Newlands, and George Washington. This list includes the iconic Washington Monument and the beautiful Jefferson Memorial — treasures of America’s capital city.

Washington Monument Jefferson Memorial
Muriel Bowser commission screenshot

In 2017, President Donald Trump warned that the iconoclasm driving the removal of Confederate monuments would lead to the removal of monuments to America’s Founding Fathers.

“This week it’s Robert E. Lee, I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down,” he said at the time. “I wonder, is it George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

Commentators mocked Trump at the time, but now his remark seems prescient, if not prosaic.

Following the death of George Floyd, vandals defaced and toppled monuments celebrating George WashingtonThomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. They also targeted Mahatma Gandhi, Union General Ulysses S. Grant, black Union soldiers, and freed slave Frederick Douglass. The iconoclasts also vandalized a monument to five firefighters who lost their lives trying to save lives at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

After all, who else will save America from those horrible racist firefighters?

Yes, the far Left does want to remove these statues, and now a Democratic mayor’s commission has recommended removing the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial from the nation’s capital city because racism.

Of course, the commission did not just recommend striking down the Washington Monument and the Jefferson Memorial. It also objected to 22 of the district’s public and charter school names, 78 street names, two of the ten public libraries, and 12 out of 75 parks and playgrounds named after historical figures.

In some cases, it may make sense to remove a name from a school, street, or monument as America’s culture changes. For example, the “Battle At Liberty Place” monument in New Orleans commemorated a Confederate uprising that took place after the Civil War. That monument literally celebrated the words “white supremacy.” That “monument” went too far by any standard, and Americans should celebrate its removal.

When activists begin to label America’s Founders, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Frankin, and George Mason “persons of concern” whose monuments should be removed from public view, they have jumped the shark. Nay, they have identified themselves as opponents of America’s heritage.

The Violence Against This Civil War Monument Captures Just How Badly the George Floyd Riots Have Gone Wrong

Why condemn the Washington Monument?

Yet perhaps it should not surprise Americans that Bowser’s committee would take aim at Washington, D.C., icons like the Washington Monument and the Jefferson memorial. After all, The New York Times launched the “1619 Project,” which uses Marxist critical theory to demonize America as a country founded on racist slavery, as opposed to a country founded on the Declaration of Independence.

The 1619 Project pushes an unguided and destructive revolution in the name of “racial justice.” It preaches that various aspects of American society, such as capitalism, are oppressive and racist. Indeed, the Smithsonian briefly taught that even things like science, the nuclear family, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and politeness itself are oppressive aspects of a “whiteness” culture.

Portland activist Lilith Sinclair showed how Marxist critical theory pushes aimless revolution. “There’s still a lot of work to undo the harm of colonized thought that has been pushed onto Black and indigenous communities,” she said. As examples of “colonized thought,” she mentioned Christianity and the “gender binary.” She said she organizes for “the abolition of … the “United States as we know it.”

When vandals toppled a statue of George Washington in Portland, they spray-painted “1619” on the statue. When Claremont’s Charles Kesler wrote in The New York Post “Call them the 1619 riots,” 1619 Project Founder Nikole Hannah-Jones responded (in a since-deleted tweet) that “it would be an honor” to claim responsibility for the destructive riots and the defamation of American Founding Fathers like George Washington.

In a November 9, 1995 op-ed, Hannah-Jones condemned Christopher Columbus as “no different” from Adolf Hitler and demonized the “white race” as the true “savages” and “bloodsuckers.” She went on to describe “white America’s dream” as “colored America’s nightmare.” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) expressed a similar sentiment when she called for the “dismantling” of America’s “economy and political system,” in order to root out supposed racist oppression.

Yet the “1619 riots” have arguably oppressed black people far more than the U.S. supposedly does. The riots have destroyed black livesblack livelihoods, and black monuments. At least 22 Americans have died in the riots, most of them black.

Americans accept that the country has a complex history, and many are willing to reconsider some historical monuments. But if Muriel Bowser removes the Washington Monument or the Lincoln Memorial, Americans will revolt against this dangerous and destructive ideology. Indeed, even by considering the removal of these Washington, D.C., icons, Bowser has made Trump’s reelection more likely.

Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.

Is Tom Cotton a Defender of Slavery?
This Activist’s Marxist Brainwashing Explains Why Antifa Has Terrorized Portland for 51 Nights
Vandals Target Monument for Those Evil Racist — Checks Notes — 9/11 Firefighters
Trump: ‘Joe Biden Has Given Moral Aid and Comfort’ to Rioters by Repeating ‘Peaceful Protests’
Antifa Celebrates After Gunman Kills Trump Supporter Rioters Brand a ‘Fascist’ and a ‘Nazi’
 

UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO TO REMOVE PRESIDENT MILLARD FILMORE’S NAME FROM CAMPUS BECAUSE OF “SYSTEMIC RACISM”

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/08/university-at-buffalo-to-remove-millard-fillmores-name-from-campus-because-of-systemic-racism;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

It isn’t surprising that this ugly little episode in the Left’s ongoing efforts to erase our history and make us ashamed of being Americans would happen at the University at Buffalo, where everything that is wrong with academic life in America today thrives and is praised. I spoke there a few years ago, or tried to. What actually happened was that I was screamed at by self-righteous Leftist fascists for an hour and a half while university security personnel stood by and watched, and made no attempt to do anything to create the basis for a civil discussion. But the University at Buffalo is no outlier. It is all too typical.

My latest at PJ Media:

This will require the renaming of the Millard Fillmore Academic Center, “which contains several academic departments, student dormitories, a theater, and other services,” and which “will now be referred to as simply the Academic Center.”In this case, the mob behind this latest act of historical vandalism is made up of university administrators, who announced that “#UBuffalo will remove the names Millard Fillmore, James O. Putnam and Peter B. Porter from four locations at UB, a decision that aligns with the university’s commitment to fight systemic racism and create a welcoming environment for all.” UB President Satish Tripathi said: “Clearly, historical namings on our campus—whether academic buildings, residential halls, interior spaces or thoroughfares—carry important symbolic value. We want to ensure that these symbols align with our mission—namely, that we are a diverse, inclusive scholarly community.”Tripathi either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the fact that Fillmore actually said: “God knows that I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil, for which we are not responsible, and we must endure it, till we can get rid of it without destroying the last hope of free government in the world.” Despite this, however, as President of the United States, he signed the Fugitive Slave Act, a law requiring antislavery Northerners to return escaped slaves to their owners in the South.Fillmore did this not because he thought slavery was wonderful, but because he was constrained, as all presidents are, by the political exigencies of the day….

There is an antidote to the Left’s assault on our history. Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster is an evaluation of the Presidents of the U.S. from an America-First standpoint, and a brisk reminder of what has made America great. When the authoritarians, totalitarians, and fascists are attacking our history, it’s all the more important that we know and cherish that history.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

 

ILLINOIS STATE REP. CALLS FOR THE ABOLITION OF HISTORY CLASSES IN THE STATE’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/08/illinois-state-rep-calls-for-the-abolition-of-history-classes-in-the-states-public-schools;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Rep. Ford claims that “current school history teaching leads to white privilege and a racist society.” Meleika Gardner of We Will says: “Miseducation has fed and continues to feed systemic racism for generations. If Black History continues to be devalued and taught incorrectly, then it will call for further action.” Evanston Mayor Steve Hagerty adds: “I support House Bill 4954 because I am interested in learning more and believe the history of Black people should be taught to all children and include all groups, Women, LatinX, and Native Indians who helped to build America.”

All this gives the impression that February is White History Month, not Black History Month, and that the teaching of history in public schools has more of a slant toward the Confederate States than the United States. This is, of course, absurd. We see the products of public education in America today venting their hatred for their native land every night now in Seattle and Portland.

What we need is not more focus on the grievances of this or that group, but rather on what has made the nation great for all of us, of every race and ethnic background. Rep. Ford’s initiative is yet another in a long line of Leftist attempts to erase our history and make us ashamed of being Americans, which will lead us to not having either the will or desire to defend this nation from internal and external attacks.

What we need now, when so many people are telling us that America was never great and is nothing to be proud of, is an unapologetic reaffirmation of what did indeed make this nation the greatest, most magnanimous, freest country the world has ever known. That’s why I wrote Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster, which will be out in a few weeks and which you can preorder now. It evaluates the presidents of the United States on the simple basis of whether or not they were good for America and Americans. Along the way, it gives you a brisk reminder of the history that Leftist destroyers are trying to steal from us. If we do not know our own history, their sinister endeavor will be all the easier to accomplish. Rep. Ford himself put it best regarding why this book is urgently needed now: “the miseducation of our children must stop.”

“Chicago-Area Leaders Call for Illinois to Abolish History Classes,” NBC Chicago, August 2, 2020:

At a news conference, State Rep. LaShawn K. Ford said current history teachings lead to a racist society and overlook the contributions of women and minorities.

Before the event Sunday, Rep. Ford’s office distributed a news release “Rep. Ford Today in Evanston to Call for the Abolishment of History Classes in Illinois Schools,” in which Ford asked the ISBOE and school districts to immediately remove history curriculum and books that “unfairly communicate” history “until a suitable alternative is developed.”…

The full news release is below:

Rep. Ford Today in Evanston to Call for the Abolishment of History Classes in Illinois Schools

Concerned that current school history teaching leads to white privilege and a racist society, state Rep. La Shawn K. Ford, D-Chicago, will join local leaders today at noon at the Robert Crown Center in Evanston to call on the state to stop its current history teaching practices until appropriate alternatives are developed.

“When it comes to teaching history in Illinois, we need to end the miseducation of Illinoisans,” Ford said. “I’m calling on the Illinois State Board of Education and local school districts to take immediate action by removing current history books and curriculum practices that unfairly communicate our history. Until a suitable alternative is developed, we should instead devote greater attention toward civics and ensuring students understand our democratic processes and how they can be involved. I’m also alarmed that people continue to display symbols of hate, such as the recent display of the Confederate flag in Evanston.”

Attendees at Sunday’s press conference will discuss how current history teaching practices overlook the contributions by Women and members of the Black, Jewish, LGBTQ communities and other groups. These individuals are pushing for an immediate change in history changing practice starting this school year.

The miseducation of our children must stop,” said Meleika Gardner of We Will. “It is urgent that it comes to an end as we witness our current climate become more hostile. Miseducation has fed and continues to feed systemic racism for generations. If Black History continues to be devalued and taught incorrectly, then it will call for further action.”

Evanston Mayor Steve Hagerty notes “As Mayor, I am not comfortable speaking on education, curriculum, and whether history lessons should be suspended. This is not my area. Personally, I support House Bill 4954 because I am interested in learning more and believe the history of Black people should be taught to all children and include all groups, Women, LatinX, and Native Indians who helped to build America.”

 

KINDERGARTEN HISTORY LESSONS IN VIRGINIA TO FOCUS ON SLAVERY

"Activism and action civics" opportunities for young students will be promoted.

BY SARA DOGAN

SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/07/kindergarten-history-lessons-virginia-focus-sara-dogan;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Most adults who attended public school remember early history lessons about American leaders and symbols—George Washington crossing the Delaware, Betsy Ross sewing the American flag. But starting this fall, kindergarteners in Loudon County—a wealthy suburb of Washington D.C.—will be taught a new radicalized history curriculum focusing on slavery and social justice.

Loudon County has elected to partner with the disgraced far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to develop the new curriculum which deliberately paints America in a highly negative light.

"Sugarcoating or ignoring slavery until later grades makes students more upset by or even resistant to true stories about American history. Long before we teach algebra, we teach its component parts," the curriculum reads. "We should structure history instruction the same way."

The new curriculum also highlights "activism and action civics" opportunities for young students in kindergarten through second grade.

"Students should study examples of role models from the past and present, and ask themselves, ‘how can I make a difference?'" the guidelines explain. "These conversations [about slavery] should lead into discussions about current injustices — particularly those that continue to disenfranchise and oppress the descendants of enslaved people — and possibilities for activism and reform."

In short, public school teachers must prepare their students to take up the mantle of Black Lives Matter.

While the decision to teach five-year-olds about one of the most disturbing chapters in American history may seem extreme, it is being mirrored in school districts across the nation. The New York Times’ much-vaunted but counterfactual “1619 Project” claims to prove that “nearly everything that has made America exceptional grew out of slavery.” Despite the objections of numerous historians who dispute the narrative provided by the Times, curricula based on the Project are now proliferating at public schools across America.

The political tenor of the new lessons was confirmed by a longtime Loudon County elementary teacher who spoke with the Washington Free Beacon on the condition of anonymity because she feared for her job if her real views about the new curriculum were made known.

"I teach lower grades in elementary school.… [Never before] did I have to teach about slavery," the teacher said. "Our standards were always [to] teach about famous Americans, George Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., people like that. But, it was all very general and the bigger picture, we highlighted their accomplishments." She noted that slavery is usually taught beginning in the fourth grade when students have greater maturity to understand it in its historical context.

"What they're really trying to do is divide people as early as they can, starting now with kindergarteners. They're really going to be inciting hate," the teacher added. "They're pointing out that there's ‘whiteness' and ‘blackness' and that's crazy. We never taught about that in school…. We learn about how to get along with one another and be kind and respect others. But now, with this new curriculum that they're adding, it's going to do the total opposite."

Max Eden, an education policy expert at the libertarian-minded Manhattan Institute, concurred that the curriculum was not suitable for young children. "Students aren't prepared when they're five years old to develop a nuanced sense of history and political processes, and pros and cons of different side effects, and unintended consequences," Eden said. "What the real goal of this is, by introducing [slavery] this young, is to try to get the left-wing, Nikole Hannah-Jones [creator of the 1619 Project], meta-political narrative into kids' heads as soon as possible, which is basically trying to compel them to believe that because slavery happened, therefore, America is evil and you must follow the leftist idea of … how we need to overturn power in society."

Parents in the district also expressed their anger at the politicized curriculum. "SPLC is pushing Marxist ideology more or less. They're really pushing those concepts of ‘revolution' and ‘dismantling the system' that we have," one father stated. "So rather than everyone coming together and building something great together, it's about destroying what's been built."

 

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS THE PARTY OF SLAVERY & SEGREGATION

BY DAVID CLOUD

SEE: https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/the_democratic_party_is_the_party_of_slavery.php;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
July 15, 2020
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, [email protected]
Politics is compromising, dirty business, at best, and we aren’t flag wavers for any political party. None of them are godly, to say the least. But truth in history is important.

The Republican Party was formed largely on an anti-slavery platform. It emerged in 1854 to combat the expansion of slavery into American territories and new states. The theme was “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men,” with “Free Soil” referring to granting western land to farmers.

“In 1865, the Republicans passed the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery.”
The first Republican Party president was Abraham Lincoln, who led the Union’s war against the Southern Confederacy, a war that was not wholly about slavery, but slavery was a fundamental aspect.

In 1865, the Republicans passed the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery.

In 1868, Republicans passed the Fourteenth Amendment granting citizenship to former slaves and equal protection under the law.

Under President Ulysses Grant (1868-1876), Republicans, backed by federal troops, sought to “Reconstruct” the South and enforce federal laws granting liberties to blacks. They formed “Union Leagues” and fought the Ku Klux Klan and other segregationist forces.

In 1872, the first seven black members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives were Republicans.

In 1873, Democrats won control of the House of Representatives at the federal level and formed “Redeemer” coalitions that gradually gained control over the state governments in the South.

In 1877, federal troops were removed from the Southern states and the era of Reconstruction ended. Democratic-controlled southern governments enacted segregation policies, called “Jim Crow Laws, which effectively disenfranchised blacks and segregated all aspects of society. “The region then became the Solid South, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats through 1964” (“History of the United States Republican Party,” Wikipedia).

“The timing of the agreement was prompted by the presidential election of 1876 between Democrat Samuel B. Tilden, governor of New York, and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, governor of Ohio. When the votes were counted, Tilden led Hayes by one vote in the Electoral College. But the Republicans accused the Democrats of voter fraud, saying they intimidated African-American voters in three Southern states, Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina, and prevented them from voting, thus fraudulently handing the election to Tilden.

“Congress set up a bipartisan commission made up of five U.S. representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices, with a balance of eight Republicans and seven Democrats. They struck a deal: The Democrats agreed to allow Hayes to become president and to respect the political and civil rights of African-Americans if the Republicans would remove all remaining federal troops from Southern states. This effectively ended the era of Reconstruction in the South and consolidated Democratic control, which lasted until the mid-1960s, nearly a century.

“Hayes kept his side of the bargain and removed all federal troops from Southern states within two months of his inauguration. But Southern Democrats reneged on their part of the deal.

“With the federal presence gone, disenfranchisement of African-American voters in the South became widespread and Southern states passed segregationist laws governing virtually all aspects of society--called Jim Crow--that remained intact until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed during the administration of President Lyndon B.Johnson. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 followed a year later, finally codifying into law the promises made by Southern Democrats in the Compromise of 1877” (“The Compromise of 1877 Set the Stage for the Jim Crow Era,” ThoughtCo.com).
__________

The following is excerpted a speech by Dinesh D’Souza, Stanford University, March 2019 [web reference]

The fascists [in Europe], for their part, were deriving and drawing ideas from the United States. This is not known, and I want to give a single example which I have dramatized in my movie The Death of a Nation. ...

Leading members of Nazi Germany, 1935, are in a room and they are drafting the so-called Nuremberg laws. These are the laws that make Jews into second class citizens, and they do three things: they segregate Jews into ghettos, they forbid intermarriage between Jews and other Germans, and they condone confiscation of Jewish property. In other words, state-sponsored discrimination against Jews. The Nazis are sitting there, and basically they are saying, ‘We want to make these laws, but there is no international precedent for them. Nobody has done this type of thing.’ Then one of the Nazis who had studied in the United States said, ‘Actually, gentlemen, you are wrong. Somebody has beaten us to the punch. The Democratic party in the United States has laws that do all of the three things that we want. The Jim Crow laws of the American south have segregation, anti-miscegenation laws outlawing intermarriage, and they condone state-sponsored discrimination. All we have to do is take the laws of the Democratic party, cross out the word Black, write in the word Jew, and we are home free.’ What am I saying here? I’m not saying that the Nazis got a parallel idea. I’m saying that actual Nazis had in their hands the blueprints of the Democratic laws and they used it to create the Nuremberg laws, and this fact has been completely suppressed in progressing historiography in the United States.

Now I said the Nazis were talking about the Democratic laws, and you might be thinking, ‘Democratic laws? Aren’t you talking about the southern laws?’ See, the Nazis actually knew something that we don’t know, namely, every segregation law in the United States, from the 1880s to the 1950s was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, enforced by Democratic officials, and there is not a single exception to this rule. ... I want to pull back and say just a word about slavery. When I speak on campuses, it is not atypical to tell students that the Democratic party was the party of slavery, and I say it so matter of factly that the students are a little puzzled because they have always heard that slavery was done by the white man, or by America. And I say, Look, America didn’t do anything. Some Americans did it, and other Americans stopped them. We need to distinguish who did it, and who did it was the Democratic party in the north and the south. That’s the key. The whole idea of knocking Confederate monuments is essentially a strategic stage tactic to fool you into thinking that the slavery debate was north-south. But Abraham Lincoln knew better. When he identified the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, the four bad guys of slavery, he mentioned Roger Taney, who wrote the Dred Scott decision. He was a southerner [Democrat] from Maryland. Then Lincoln mentions Franklin Pierce, the former President from New Hampshire, northern Democrat; James Buchanan from Pennsylvania, northern Democrat; and Stephen Douglas, Lincoln’s supreme antagonist, from Illinois, northern Democrat. So three of the four pro-slavery champions are northerners.

Inevitably when I tell students this, the following happens. Some professor ... stands up and says, ‘Mr. D’Souza, you are misleading the audience by pointing a finger of blame solely at one party, whereas we all know that there was plenty of blame to go around.’ Very interesting statement. First of all it retreats from the position that the Republicans are the bad guys. It now tries, sort of with a squid-like cloud of obfuscation, to spread the blame so broadly so that no one really knows what’s going on. So it is really important at this time to unfurl what I call ‘the crushing fact.’ It is the fact that settles the argument at one blow. This is the time for me to point out that in 1860, the year before the Civil War, no Republican owned a slave. Think about this for a moment. I’m not saying that no Republican leader owned a slave. I’m saying no Republican in the United States owned a slave. ... All you have to do is name one Republican who owned a slave, and I would have to take this back. And yet from the time I made this statement well over two years ago not a single valid counter-example has surfaced. Several months ago I got an email from a demographer at the University of Michigan who said, “Dinesh, I’ve been working this. I’ve got you. Ulysses S. Grant inherited a slave on his wife’s side.’ I said, Well, that is an impressive riposte. I need to point out to you that at the time this occurred, Ulysses S. Grant was a Democrat. He became a Republican later.

What am I getting at? We have a really strange phenomenon. If you look at what’s going on now, you have Democrats, on the left, pointing the finger of racism at the very people who fought racism from the beginning of this country’s history, while suppressing the fact that the actual racism came from their party. This is not just about slavery. The Democrats were the party of slavery, of segregation, of founding the Ku Klux Klan, of reviving the Ku Klux Klan, of racial terrorism, and of opposition to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The opposition to the civil rights act of 1964, the voting rights act of 1965, the fair housing bill of 1968 came mainly from the Democratic party, and that’s a fact.

Faced with this crushing history, we have a puzzle. First of all, the very guys who have poisoned the waters are now showing up pretending to be the water commissioner. They did it! They have never admitted it. They have never apologized for it. They haven’t paid one penny of restitution for it. And yet they presume to lecture the rest of us who are completely innocent on this score of being the real culprits. This is really funny. My wife, Debby, is Latina. Her father is Venezuelan, her mother Mexican, and we were at Dartmouth: an east Indian and Latina. And a bunch of white guys were screaming at us, ‘Racist!’ What is this, Saturday Night Live! And this is an Ivy League college.

I want to address one final point. This is a very important point for the Left. It is the idea that the two parties switched sides. ... The main thrust of the argument is that racist Dixiecrats (those who voted against the civil rights acts) all became Republicans. If true, this would vindicate the idea that the Democrats may have once been the bad guys but now the bad guys have sort of moved over. The beauty of this kind of statement is the fact that it is empirical. It’s not one of those, ‘Who’s to say what’s true?’ No, all you have to do is do a web search for ‘Dixiecrat’ and then you count how many of the racist Dixiecrats became Republican. The correct answer, which I will tell you now, is two. In the House, one guy Albert Watson, and in the Senate, one guy Strom Thurmond, and all the other racist Dixiecrats lived and died in the Democratic party. They are lionized to this day. There are buildings in Washington D.C. named after them. So this notion of a party switch is a big lie.

The racists stayed in the Democratic party. Their tactics shifted over the years. Where does this leave us today? Very sadly, some of these terrible things from history--bigotry, a fascist streak--we still have it in America. But where is it coming from? People say, ‘Trump’s the fascist. He hates democracy. He won’t tolerate dissent.’ I’m thinking, ‘If Trump is a fascist and he won’t tolerate dissent, how come you are dissenting? Trump is bashed on every platform every minute of the day. He is bashed on the Emmys. Broadway shows are interrupted to bash Trump. If this was Mussolini he would send a bunch of goons and beat those guys up and that would be the end of that. That’s how dictators actually behave. I saw Cher complaining that Trump beat her up on Twitter. on Twitter! That being said, there is a streak of bullying and intimidation and intolerance. I would argue that simple empirical evidence shows that it is coming from the Left.

The previous is excerpted a speech by Dinesh D’Souza, Stanford University, March 2019 [web reference]

 

WHY ISN’T BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTING THE SLAVERY THAT STILL EXISTS TODAY?

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/07/why-isnt-black-lives-matter-protesting-the-slavery-that-still-exists-today;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

My latest in PJ Media:

It is, or ought to be, clear to everyone by now that Black Lives Matter is not a genuine movement for racial justice and a more equitable society, but a Marxist organization using real, exaggerated, and imagined racial injustice to try to destroy the United States. Anyone who is still in doubt about this should consider the fact that some blacks are still enslaved today, and Black Lives Matter never has and never will say a word about it, because that organization doesn’t really care about black lives.

If they did actually care about the lives of black people, Black Lives Matter would today be drawing international attention to statements made recently by the Mauritanian anti-slavery activist Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh of the Initiative for the Resurgence of the Abolitionist Movement (IRA). According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh stated in a June 18 interview: “Unfortunately, there is still slavery in Mauritania. More than 20% of people in Mauritania suffer from slavery – a situation where a person owns another person and does whatever he wants with him at any given moment. This situation exists here in Mauritania, unfortunately.”

Al-Sheikh further explained that slaves are often even “bequeathed from father to son. A person can own a slave and when that person dies, his children inherit the slave, who is later bequeathed to the grandchildren. This thing exists in Mauritania, unfortunately.” Even worse, “anyone who speaks out is considered a criminal whose natural place in in jail. Until not so long ago, [whoever spoke up] would have been killed.”

As an anti-slavery activist, Al-Sheikh has experienced this herself: “I was arrested and tortured multiple times. I was tortured both mentally and physically. The last time I was arrested, I had a 1.5-year-old baby. They separated us by force. And they weaned him. The Mauritanian state weaned my baby – a 1.5-year-old baby. He was weaned. And they prevented me from seeing him, and they wouldn’t let my husband or relatives visit me.”

Maryam Bint Al-Sheikh’s story is just one of innumerable such accounts. Why does Mauritania continually drag its feet about eradicating slavery, and persecute anti-slavery activists? The dirty little secret here is that it is because slavery is sanctioned in Islam.

There is much more. Read the rest here.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:

https://ratherexposethem.org/2020/07/08/david-cloud-america-slaverythe-real-historical-facts/

 

DAVID CLOUD: AMERICA & SLAVERY~THE REAL HISTORICAL FACTS

SEE: https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/america_and_slavery.php;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
August 1, 2019
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, [email protected]
Slavery has been practiced since the fall of man. It is not a a product of “racism”; it is not an issue of skin color; it is a product of man’s sinful heart because of which he practices far more hatred toward his fellow man than love of neighbor. Jesus described man’s condition with perfect accuracy:
“All these evil things come from within, and defile the man”

“And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:20-23).

Slavery has been practiced by the white man, the black man, the red man, and the yellow man, and every other kind of man.

That is a fact of history.

Slavery was practiced by the Babylonians, the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Persians, the native Brits, the Dans, the Romans, the African kingdoms, the South American kingdoms, the Chinese, Indians, Nepalese, Burmese, Native Americans, the Muslim kingdoms.

That is a fact of man’s wretched history, and it is a reflection of man’s fallen condition.

It is also a fact of history as to who was at the forefront of the war against slavery. It wasn’t the Muslims. It wasn’t the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Animists or the Atheists or the Humanists. It wasn’t Roman Catholics. It wasn’t the black African nations or the Asian nations or the South American nations or the Eskimos. It was (mostly) white Protestant and Baptist Christians in England and America.

This is a fact of history.

America’s role in the destruction of slavery in modern times is a fascinating study.

Timeline of the American Abolitionist Movement

There was widespread opposition to slavery from the time of the founding of the American colonies, and many of the Founding Fathers were opponents, but abolition became a groundswell movement during the Second Great Awakening, both in America and England. The culmination in America was the Civil War of 1860-65, after which slavery was officially abolished. Following are some of the important events:
1794 - The U.S. government passes a law prohibiting slavery in new American territories
------- The American Convention for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery is founded
1803 - The Pennsylvania Abolition Society is founded; Benjamin Rush, an American Founding Father, is elected the first president
1807 - The British government abolishes the slave trade, though the owning of slaves in British colonies is still legal
1808 - The British forms the West Africa Squadron to capture slave ships. Between 1808-1860, the Squadron captures 1,600 slave ships and frees 150,000 slaves
------- The U.S. government outlaws American participation in the African slave trade
1821 - The first American anti-slavery newspaper is founded (The Genius of Universal Emancipation)
1822 - Denmark Vessey unsuccessfully tries to lead a slave revolt in South Carolina
1830s - The Underground Railway is established to help runaway slaves escape to the northern states and Canada
1831 - Nate Turner leads a slave revolt in Virginia, resulting in stricter slave laws
1833 - Great Britain abolishes slavery
1833 - The American Antislavery Society is organized and within five years it has more than 1,350 chapters and 250,000 members
1852 - Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which is influential in stirring abolitionist sentiment
1856 - The Republican Party is formed in America as a coalition of various political groups opposing slavery
1859 - John Brown unsuccessfully tries to capture the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, to launch a slave revolt
1860 - Abraham Lincoln is elected U.S. President, the first Republican party president
1861 - Eleven Southern states secede from the Union after the election of Abraham Lincoln
1862 - “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” by Julia Ward Howe is published
1863 - Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery in the Confederate States
1865 - The Civil War ends and the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishes slavery in all states
1868 - The Fourteenth Amendment gave citizenship rights to native-born blacks and equal protection under the law
1870 - The Fifteenth Amendment gave voting rights to black men
1948 - President Harry Truman ended segregation in the U.S. military by an executive order

AMERICA AND SLAVERY

From its founding, America has been a mixed multitude of people of varying principles, including religious principles.

Early America was strongly influenced by the Bible and most of its citizens were professing Christians of some sort, but there were all sorts of Christians, some born again and some “nominal,” trusting in baptism and good works rather than in a personal relationship with Christ, and there were also many non-Christians.

Even in the Plymouth Colony founded by the Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower in 1620, there were nominal Christians and some non-Christians.

As on many issues, early America was divided on the issue of slavery.

On one side were those who believed in slavery and kept slaves.

On the other side, there were many in America who were opposed to slavery, even during the Colonial era. These understood that it was wrong and hypocritical to proclaim liberty for all men while keeping some men in bondage to slavery.

For example, Samuel Hopkins of Rhode Island sent a pamphlet to the Continental Congress “asking how they and Americans, so adverse to enslavement by British Parliament, could overlook the slavery of African-Americans ‘who have as good a claim to liberty as themselves’” (Angela Kamrath, The Miracle of America).

In 1772, Baptist pastor John Allen of Boston preached that slavery violates the laws of God and the natural rights of men. He stated this in An Oration on the Beauties of Liberty, or The Essential Right of the Americans.

In 1791, Jonathan Edwards, famous Great Awakening preacher, published “The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade.” He cited Christ’s “Golden Rule” as evidence that slavery is not God’s will.

Hopkins, Allen, and Edwards represented the thinking of large numbers of Americans in that day.

American Quakers opposed slavery beginning in the 1670s. William Penn, a Quaker and the founder of Pennsylvania in 1682, owned slaves for a few years, but he treated them well and eventually freed them. In 1737, Quaker Benjamin Lay published a paper against “All Slave Keepers that Keep the Innocent in Bondage.” He called slavery “a notorious sin.” In 1774, the Quakers ended slavery among themselves, and those who persisted in owning slaves were expelled. Famous Quaker poet John Greenleaf Whittier was a strong voice against slavery. He edited the Pennsylvania Freeman and promoted freedom for all men. Quakers had a prominent role in the Underground Railroad that helped southern slaves escape their masters. Quakers boycotted slave-produced goods in an attempt to put financial pressure on slaveholders. Philadelphia, the capital of Pennsylvania, was the home of the first black denomination in America, the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Pennsylvania was the first American state to pass a slavery abolition act. This was in 1780, even before the end of the War of Independence. In Britain, Quakers were at the forefront of the movement that abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1838.

The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833 under the leadership of William Lloyd Garrison, and within seven years there were 2,000 auxiliary societies with a total membership of 150,000 to 200,000. This shows that anti-slavery sentiment was widespread in America.

Slavery in the 18th Century

It is important to understand the historical context. Slavery was widely accepted the world over at the time of America’s founding in the 18th century.

It is an institution nearly as old as man. Man’s “inhumanity” is the product of his sin nature. Jesus said, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Mt. 15:19). The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia practiced slavery, as did the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek, and the Roman empires. Slavery was practiced in China and India and the Americas; it was practiced by the Mongols and Huns and Vikings and North American Indians.

From ancient times, Africans enslaved Africans. In many parts of Africa, a third of the population were enslaved by their fellow blacks beginning in AD 1300 and earlier, and in some parts of Africa the percentage was even higher. For the most part, it was black Africans who captured African slaves in the interior of the continent and brought them to the coasts for sale. Black tribal leaders, such as the kings of Dohomey, would raid and capture blacks from neighboring tribes and sell them. In the 1840s, King Gezo of Dahomey said, “The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth ... the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery” (Ibn Warraq, Why the West Is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy, 2011, p. 114). What a wretched lullaby!

Islam practiced slavery from its inception in the seventh century AD and was at the heart of the slave trade on the Barbary Coast of Africa for hundreds of years. We have documented this in The Bible and Islam, which is available as a free eBook from www.wayoflife.org.

England had a major role in the Atlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries. So did the Portuguese, Dutch, and French.

America’s Founding Fathers and Slavery

Like the early American population as a whole, the American Founders represented many beliefs.

Some were Bible-believing Christians who had personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Following are a few examples:

Samuel Adams (1722-1803), signer of the Declaration of Independence, Governor of Massachusetts. In his last will and testament he wrote “I ... [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins” (Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, edited by William Wells, 1865, Vol. III, p. 379).

Charles Carroll (1737-1822), signer of the Declaration of Independence, framer of the Bill of Rights. “On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts” (Letter from Carroll to Charles Wharton, Sep. 27, 1825).

Robert Treat Paine (1731-1814), signer of the Declaration of Independence, Attorney General of Massachusetts. “I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of His Providential goodness and His forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state” (Last Will and Testament, attested May 11, 1814).

Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), signer of the Declaration of Independence and “Father of American Medicine.” “My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it” (The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush).

Roger Sherman (1721-1793), signer of the Declaration of Independence, framer of the Bill of Rights. “I believe that God ... did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.” (The Life of Roger Sherman by Lewis Boutell, 1896, pp. 271-273).

John Witherspoon (1723-1794), signer of the Declaration of Independence. “... no man, whatever be his character or whatever be his hope, shall enter into rest unless he be reconciled to God though Jesus Christ” (The Works of John Witherspoon, 1815, Vol. V, pp. 245, 267).

On the other hand, some of America’s founders were skeptics who did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and did not believe the Bible to be God’s infallible Word. The most prominent examples are Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, the first Secretary of State under George Washington, and the third President of the United States. Jefferson made his own “Bible” by cutting out of the Gospels everything pertaining to the divine and miraculous in Jesus’ life. Jefferson’s “Bible” left out references to angels, prophecy, Christ’s deity, the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection.

Franklin, who has been called “the first American,” was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution. Like Jefferson, he wanted to maintain the moral code of Christianity as a rule for society, but he did not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Franklin was a great fan of the blasphemous French skeptic Voltaire. Instead of bringing his grandson Benny Bache to the feet of Jesus, Franklin sought Voltaire’s blessing on the boy (H.W. Brands, The First American, p. 563). Franklin participated enthusiastically in a eulogy following Voltaire’s death. It was held in a hall dressed in black and lit by candles. Franklin took his Masonic crown and laid it at the foot of a large painting of Voltaire (The First American, p. 565). At the end of his life, Franklin said “I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to [Christ’s] divinity.”

This being said, most of America’s Founding Fathers were opposed to slavery.

John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States and son of John Adams, second President of the U.S., was called the “Hell Hound of Abolition” for his persistent efforts to end slavery. In 1837, he said that the nation’s founders were opposed to slavery. “The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery--in common with every other mode of oppression--was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth” (An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837).

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third president, inherited slaves from his father beginning at age 14 and owned slaves all his life, but he introduced legislation throughout his career to abolish slavery.

“How could the man who wrote that ‘All men are created equal’ own slaves? This, in essence, is the question most persistently asked of those who write about Thomas Jefferson, and by all indications it is the thing that contemporary Americans find most vexing about him. ... The question carries a silent assumption that because he practiced slave holding, Jefferson must have somehow believed in it, and must therefore have been a hypocrite. My belief is that this way of asking the question ... is essentially backward, and reflects the pervasive presentism of our time. Consider, for example, how different the question appears when inverted and framed in more historical terms: How did a man who was born into a slave holding society, whose family and admired friends owned slaves, who inherited a fortune that was dependent on slaves and slave labor, decide at an early age that slavery was morally wrong and forcefully declare that it ought to be abolished? Though stating the same case, these are obviously different questions, focusing on different things, but one is framed in a historical context and the other ignores historical circumstances. The rephrased question reveals that what is truly remarkable is that Jefferson went against his society and his own self-interest to denounce slavery and urge its abolition” (Douglas Wilson, “Thomas Jefferson and the Character Issue,” The Atlantic Monthly, November 1992).

In 1778, he was instrumental in having the importation of slaves to Virginia banned. He introduced legislation in the Continental Congress to ban slavery, and it failed to pass by only one vote. He called slavery a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot” (“Thomas Jefferson and Slavery,” Monticello.org). He feared that America would be destroyed by slavery and that it would lead to a civil war, which it did in 1861. As U.S. President, he continued to fight against slavery, but many American slave owners opposed him. He could not free his slaves upon his death, because he owed a large amount of money and his estate, including his slaves, had to be sold to pay the debt. In his Memoir, written at age 77, Jefferson said, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” Black American leaders such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr., praised Jefferson for his efforts to abolish slavery.

Recent scholarship claims that Jefferson fathered at least one child by one of his slaves named Sally Hemings, and this is possible, though it has not been absolutely proven.

We would note that Jefferson, as previously mentioned, was not a professing Christian or a believer in the Bible. Jefferson believed that Jesus was a good man and a great moral teacher, but he did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. As we have seen, Jefferson made his own “Bible” by cutting out everything from the Gospels pertaining to Christ’s virgin birth, miracles, atoning death, and resurrection.

George Washington

George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army and America’s first President, inherited slaves and owned slaves until his death but his thinking about slavery gradually evolved toward an abolitionist position.

At great personal cost to his estate, he vowed that he would not sell his slaves even though he could have benefited financially from doing so. After the Revolutionary War, when he was deeply in debt, the sale of just one slave would have brought him enough income to pay his estate taxes for two years. He also refused to hire out his slaves, because he did not want to break up their families. He said, “To sell the overplus I cannot, because I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in families to any advantage, and to disperse [break up] the families I have an aversion” (Washington letter to Robert Lewis, Aug. 18, 1799, Washington’s Writings, 1980, Vol. 37, p. 338).

Washington was instrumental in having a federal law passed in the first year of his presidency (1789) prohibiting slavery in the new American territories. As a result, the new states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery (“George Washington and the Washington Monument,” www.abschools.k12.wi.us, June 23, 2016).

In 1845, Daniel Webster described Washington’s efforts to abolish slavery in America:

“Soon after the adoption of the Constitution, it was declared by George Washington to be ‘among his first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery might be abolished by law;’ and in various forms in public and private communications, he avowed his anxious desire that ‘a spirit of humanity,’ prompting to ‘the emancipation of the slaves,’ ‘might diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people;’ and he gave the assurance, that ‘so far as his own suffrage would go,’ his influence should not be wanting to accomplish this result” (Webster, “Address to the People of the United States, ... to Lift Our Public Sentiment to a New Platform of Anti-slavery,” Jan. 29, 1845).

In 1793, Washington wrote to his secretary Tobias Lear and “expressed his repugnance at owning slaves and declared the principle reason for selling the land [his western lands] was to raise the finances that would allow him to liberate them” (“George Washington and Slavery,” Wikipedia, citing Dorothy Twohig, “That Species of Property: Washington’s Role in the Controversy over Slavery,” in George Washington Reconsidered by Don Higginbotham; and Henry Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America). “In November the same year [1793], Washington demonstrated in a letter to his friend and neighbor Alexander Spotswood that the reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue, first seen in his letter to Lund Washington in 1778, had become an emphatic principle against ‘selling Negroes, as you would Cattle in the market...’” (Ibid., citing Twohig). “In 1795 and 1796, Washington devised a complicated plan that involved renting out his western lands to tenant farmers to whom he would lease his own slaves, and a similar scheme to lease the dower slaves he controlled to Dr. David Stuart for work on Stuart's Eastern Shore plantation. This plan would have involved breaking up slave families, but it was designed with an end goal of raising enough finances to fund their eventual emancipation (a detail Washington kept secret) and prevent the Custis heirs from permanently splitting up families by sale. None of these schemes could be realized because of his failure to sell or rent land at the right prices, the refusal of the Custis heirs to agree to them and his own reluctance to separate families” (“George Washington and Slavery,” Wikipedia).

Washington’s will called for the liberation of his slaves upon his wife’s death, and he required that young ones be educated to read and write and taught a useful occupation.

Many accounts were told by black men and women about Washington’s humility and lack of racial prejudice. My favorite was told by Primus Hall, the servant of Col. Timothy Pickering, one of General Washington’s favorite officers during the War of Independence. One evening Washington and Pickering talked late into the evening, and Washington asked Hall if there were straw and blankets enough for him to sleep there that night. Hall replied in the affirmative, and when it was time for him to retire, Washington was shown an extra bed in Pickering’s tent made of straw and blankets and laid down to sleep, not knowing that Hall had given him his own humble bed. When Washington woke up in the night and saw Hall sleeping at the Colonel’s desk, he realized what had happened and demanded that Hall share his bed. When Hall expressed surprise and told him not to trouble himself, Washington ordered him in an authoritative voice, “Primus, I say, come and lie down here! There is room for both, and I insist upon it.” Washington moved to one side of the straw bed, and the shocked black man did as he was told. “Primus professes to have been exceedingly shocked at the idea of lying under the same covering with the commander-in-chief, but his tone was so resolute and determined that he could not hesitate. He prepared himself, therefore, and laid himself down by Washington; and on the same straw, and under the same blanket, the General and the Negro servant slept until morning” (Henry Harrington, “Anecdotes of Washington,” Godey’s Magazine and Lady’s Book, June 1849).

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, but he became an abolitionist later in life and liberated his slaves. He was the president of the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. He promoted the idea of educating former slaves and to help them find employment so they could fend for themselves.

John Dickinson

John Dickinson was a member of the First and Second Continental Congress and worked with Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. He was an officer during the War of Independence. He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was elected President of Delaware and President of Pennsylvania. Dickinson is the author of “The Liberty Song” (1768). The original chorus said, “Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all, By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall; In so righteous a cause let us hope to succeed, For heaven approves of each generous deed.”

Dickinson became an abolitionist and freed his slaves in 1776. He devoted his final years to the cause of abolition and donated a considerable amount of his wealth “to the relief of the unhappy.”

Benjamin Rush

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, denounced slavery in his tract On Slave Keeping (1773). He called it a “vice which degrades human nature.” He called on Americans to oppose it. “Remember the eyes of all Europe are fixed upon you, to preserve an asylum for freedom in this country after the last pillars of it are fallen in every other quarter of the globe.”

John Jay

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1789-95), author of five of the Federalist Papers, and Governor of New York, was a leading opponent of slavery. “His first two attempts to end slavery in New York in 1777 and 1785 failed, but a third in 1799 succeeded.” All slaves in New York were emancipated before his death in 1829.

Noah Webster

Noah Webster, who had a major influence on the U.S. Constitution through his 1787 essay An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, called for slavery to be abolished in the United States. He founded an antislavery group called the Connecticut Society for the Promotion of Freedom. His influential Blue-Back Speller included an essay by Thomas Day calling for the abolition of slavery. Day argued that this was in accordance with the nation’s Declaration of Independence. He warned Americans that consistency required that they either acknowledge the rights of the Negroes or surrender their own rights.

The Constitutional Convention

During the Constitutional Convention (1787), when the U.S. Constitution was written and the American nation was formed at the federal level, there was a strong effort to abolish slavery. The opponents of slavery found, though, that it was impossible to form the nation on that basis, since the southern colonies refused to agree with that principle.

America’s Civil War

Those who criticize America on the slavery issue must acknowledge that the nation fought its most terrible and bloody war on that issue. The Civil War was fought between 1861-1865 after southern states seceded from the Union. A majority of Americans were so strongly opposed to slavery that they were willing to go to war against their fellow Americans to settle the matter. The southern states were called the Confederacy, and the northern states, the Union. About 750,000 died in the war.

There were other great issues involved in the American Civil War, particularly the issue of states rights. But slavery was definitely a fundamental issue in the conflict. This was stated plainly by the Confederate leaders.

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, made the following statement on March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia:

“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions--African slavery as it exists among us--the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas [opposite from ‘all men are created equal’]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth” (Stephens, Cornerstone Speech).

In May 1845, Baptists in southern states separated from their Baptist brethren in the northern states and formed the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The founding meeting was held at First Baptist Church of Augusta, Georgia, and delegates voiced their approval of the institution of slavery. (In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized for its former stance on slavery, and in 2012 the SBC elected a black pastor as president.)

On January 27, 1861, Ebenezer Warren, pastor of First Baptist Church of Macon, Georgia, a prominent congregation in the SBC, preached a sermon entitled “Scriptural Vindication of Slavery.” This expressed the thinking of a large number of Southern whites in that day. He said:

“Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible. ... The public mind needs enlightening from the sacred teachings of inspiration on this subject. ... Both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time. ... Because Slavery is right; and because the condition of the slaves affords them all those privileges which would prove substantial blessings to them; and, too, because their Maker has decreed their bondage, and has given them, as a race, capacities and aspirations suited alone to this condition of life.”

The January 1864 issue of the Religious Herald, the official paper of the Virginia Baptists, went so far as to call abolition “the final Antichrist.”

Southern Baptists justified slavery on the basis of the law of Moses. Following are some of the Mosaic principles on slavery:

- A Jewish slave was to be given his liberty after six years (Exodus 21:2), and the liberated servant was to be furnished liberally with goods (De. 15:12-15).
- If a master injured a slave so that he died, the master was to be punished (Ex. 21:20).
- If a slave was injured by his master, he was to be given his liberty (Ex. 21:26).
- Slaves were not to be “ruled with rigour” (Le. 25:53).
- If a slave escaped from his master, he was to be protected (De. 23:15-16).

But a reading of the Bible as a whole actually supports the abolition of slavery, because both the law of Moses and the Lord Jesus Christ taught that the heart and soul of God’s law is to “love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. 19:18Mat. 22:39). It is impossible to obey this divine command while enslaving another individual.

And any concept of racial superiority has zero biblical support. All men are children of Adam. All nations are “made of one blood” (Acts 17:26).

Why, then, did the law of Moses allow for slavery? Jesus explained this in Matthew 19. Like divorce, slavery was allowed because of the hardness of man’s heart and his weak fallen condition (Mat. 19:7-8).

The Baptists in the north recognized that slavery was the chief cause of the war. The Illinois Baptists issued the following statement in June 1863: “We recognize human slavery now, as we have heretofore done, to be the cause of the war and its kindred evils, and we reiterate our convictions that there can be no peace and prosperity in the nation until it is destroyed” B.F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, 1864, p. 754).

The outcome of the American Civil War was the complete abolishment of slavery. In December 1865, the 13th amendment of the Constitution was ratified, which abolished slavery in the United States. It came at great cost in American money and blood.

The Abolition Movement and Theological Liberalism

Many aspects of the Christian abolitionist movement were deeply influenced by theological liberalism and its social gospel.

For example, there was support for slaves rebelling against their masters. David Walker of Boston issued a fiery call for rebellion in his Appeal in Four Articles in 1829. This radical side of the abolitionist movement ignored Bible commands such as 1 Corinthians 7:21-22Ephesians 6:5-8Colossians 3:22-251 Peter 2:18-21.

The liberal social gospel allegorized Scripture to justify rebellion and even murder. For example, Julia Ward Howe’s “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” interpreted the Union armies of the North as the coming of Christ. The “watch-fires” of the Union army camps are the altar of God, and “the burnish’d rows of steel” bayonets are the gospel. Howe was a Unitarian universalist who rejected Jesus Christ as the Son of God and denied the divine inspiration of Scripture. She delivered a pantheistic, universalistic message at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1893 entitled “What Is Religion?” (womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_1893_pwr_howe.htm). Howe’s husband, Samuel, funded John Brown’s murderous insurrection attempt.

Harriet Beecher Stowe is known as “the little woman who started the big war,” as her book Uncle Tom’s Cabin provoked hotheads on both sides of the issue. Her brother Henry Ward Beecher was the liberal pastor of Plymouth Church in Brooklyn. During Beecher’s career there, he opened his pulpit to Unitarians such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Horace Greeley and even to agnostics such as Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Beecher “once argued that a Sharps rifle held a better argument than a Bible for persuading slaveholders--hence these rifles were nicknamed ‘Beecher’s Bibles’ when used to combat the spread of slavery in the Kansas Territory before the American Civil War” (www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/u1encyc.htm). The Beechers were related to Julia Ward Howe.

1794 - The U.S. government passes a law prohibiting slavery in new American territories
------- The American Convention for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery is founded
1803 - The Pennsylvania Abolition Society is founded; Benjamin Rush, an American Founding Father, is elected the first president
1807 - The British government abolishes the slave trade, though the owning of slaves in British colonies is still legal
1808 - The British forms the West Africa Squadron to capture slave ships. Between 1808-1860, the Squadron captures 1,600 slave ships and frees 150,000 slaves
------- The U.S. government outlaws American participation in the African slave trade
1821 - The first American anti-slavery newspaper is founded (The Genius of Universal Emancipation)
1822 - Denmark Vessey unsuccessfully tries to lead a slave revolt in South Carolina
1830s - The Underground Railway is established to help runaway slaves escape to the northern states and Canada
1831 - Nate Turner leads a slave revolt in Virginia, resulting in stricter slave laws
1833 - Great Britain abolishes slavery
1833 - The American Antislavery Society is organized and within five years it has more than 1,350 chapters and 250,000 members
1852 - Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which is influential in stirring abolitionist sentiment
1856 - The Republican Party is formed in America as a coalition of various political groups opposing slavery
1859 - John Brown unsuccessfully tries to capture the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, to launch a slave revolt
1860 - Abraham Lincoln is elected U.S. President, the first Republican party president
1861 - Eleven Southern states secede from the Union after the election of Abraham Lincoln
1862 - “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” by Julia Ward Howe is published
1863 - Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery in the Confederate States
1865 - The Civil War ends and the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishes slavery in all states

AMERICA AND SLAVERY

From its founding, America has been a mixed multitude of people of varying principles, including religious principles.

Early America was strongly influenced by the Bible and most of its citizens were professing Christians of some sort, but there were all sorts of Christians, some born again and some “nominal,” trusting in baptism and good works rather than in a personal relationship with Christ, and there were also many non-Christians.

Even in the Plymouth Colony founded by the Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower in 1620, there were nominal Christians and some non-Christians.

As on many issues, early America was divided on the issue of slavery.

On one side were those who believed in slavery and kept slaves.

On the other side, there were many in America who were opposed to slavery, even during the Colonial era. These understood that it was wrong and hypocritical to proclaim liberty for all men while keeping some men in bondage to slavery.

For example, Samuel Hopkins of Rhode Island sent a pamphlet to the Continental Congress “asking how they and Americans, so adverse to enslavement by British Parliament, could overlook the slavery of African-Americans ‘who have as good a claim to liberty as themselves’” (Angela Kamrath, The Miracle of America).

In 1772, Baptist pastor John Allen of Boston preached that slavery violates the laws of God and the natural rights of men. He stated this in An Oration on the Beauties of Liberty, or The Essential Right of the Americans.

In 1791, Jonathan Edwards, famous Great Awakening preacher, published “The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade.” He cited Christ’s “Golden Rule” as evidence that slavery is not God’s will.

Hopkins, Allen, and Edwards represented the thinking of large numbers of Americans in that day.

American Quakers opposed slavery beginning in the 1670s. William Penn, a Quaker and the founder of Pennsylvania in 1682, owned slaves for a few years, but he treated them well and eventually freed them. In 1737, Quaker Benjamin Lay published a paper against “All Slave Keepers that Keep the Innocent in Bondage.” He called slavery “a notorious sin.” In 1774, the Quakers ended slavery among themselves, and those who persisted in owning slaves were expelled. Famous Quaker poet John Greenleaf Whittier was a strong voice against slavery. He edited the Pennsylvania Freeman and promoted freedom for all men. Quakers had a prominent role in the Underground Railroad that helped southern slaves escape their masters. Quakers boycotted slave-produced goods in an attempt to put financial pressure on slaveholders. Philadelphia, the capital of Pennsylvania, was the home of the first black denomination in America, the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Pennsylvania was the first American state to pass a slavery abolition act. This was in 1780, even before the end of the War of Independence. In Britain, Quakers were at the forefront of the movement that abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1838.

The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833 under the leadership of William Lloyd Garrison, and within seven years there were 2,000 auxiliary societies with a total membership of 150,000 to 200,000. This shows that anti-slavery sentiment was widespread in America.

Slavery in the 18th Century

It is important to understand the historical context. Slavery was widely accepted the world over at the time of America’s founding in the 18th century.

It is an institution nearly as old as man. Man’s “inhumanity” is the product of his sin nature. Jesus said, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Mt. 15:19). The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia practiced slavery, as did the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek, and the Roman empires. Slavery was practiced in China and India and the Americas; it was practiced by the Mongols and Huns and Vikings and North American Indians.

From ancient times, Africans enslaved Africans. In many parts of Africa, a third of the population were enslaved by their fellow blacks beginning in AD 1300 and earlier, and in some parts of Africa the percentage was even higher. For the most part, it was black Africans who captured African slaves in the interior of the continent and brought them to the coasts for sale. Black tribal leaders, such as the kings of Dohomey, would raid and capture blacks from neighboring tribes and sell them. In the 1840s, King Gezo of Dahomey said, “The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth ... the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery” (Ibn Warraq, Why the West Is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy, 2011, p. 114). What a wretched lullaby!

Islam practiced slavery from its inception in the seventh century AD and was at the heart of the slave trade on the Barbary Coast of Africa for hundreds of years. We have documented this in The Bible and Islam, which is available as a free eBook from www.wayoflife.org.

England had a major role in the Atlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries. So did the Portuguese, Dutch, and French.

America’s Founding Fathers and Slavery

Like the early American population as a whole, the American Founders represented many beliefs.

Some were Bible-believing Christians who had personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Following are a few examples:

Samuel Adams (1722-1803), signer of the Declaration of Independence, Governor of Massachusetts. In his last will and testament he wrote “I ... [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins” (Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, edited by William Wells, 1865, Vol. III, p. 379).

Charles Carroll (1737-1822), signer of the Declaration of Independence, framer of the Bill of Rights. “On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts” (Letter from Carroll to Charles Wharton, Sep. 27, 1825).

Robert Treat Paine (1731-1814), signer of the Declaration of Independence, Attorney General of Massachusetts. “I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of His Providential goodness and His forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state” (Last Will and Testament, attested May 11, 1814).

Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), signer of the Declaration of Independence and “Father of American Medicine.” “My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it” (The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush).

Roger Sherman (1721-1793), signer of the Declaration of Independence, framer of the Bill of Rights. “I believe that God ... did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.” (The Life of Roger Sherman by Lewis Boutell, 1896, pp. 271-273).

John Witherspoon (1723-1794), signer of the Declaration of Independence. “... no man, whatever be his character or whatever be his hope, shall enter into rest unless he be reconciled to God though Jesus Christ” (The Works of John Witherspoon, 1815, Vol. V, pp. 245, 267).

On the other hand, some of America’s founders were skeptics who did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and did not believe the Bible to be God’s infallible Word. The most prominent examples are Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, the first Secretary of State under George Washington, and the third President of the United States. Jefferson made his own “Bible” by cutting out of the Gospels everything pertaining to the divine and miraculous in Jesus’ life. Jefferson’s “Bible” left out references to angels, prophecy, Christ’s deity, the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection.

Franklin, who has been called “the first American,” was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution. Like Jefferson, he wanted to maintain the moral code of Christianity as a rule for society, but he did not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Franklin was a great fan of the blasphemous French skeptic Voltaire. Instead of bringing his grandson Benny Bache to the feet of Jesus, Franklin sought Voltaire’s blessing on the boy (H.W. Brands, The First American, p. 563). Franklin participated enthusiastically in a eulogy following Voltaire’s death. It was held in a hall dressed in black and lit by candles. Franklin took his Masonic crown and laid it at the foot of a large painting of Voltaire (The First American, p. 565). At the end of his life, Franklin said “I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to [Christ’s] divinity.”

This being said, most of America’s Founding Fathers were opposed to slavery.

John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States and son of John Adams, second President of the U.S., was called the “Hell Hound of Abolition” for his persistent efforts to end slavery. In 1837, he said that the nation’s founders were opposed to slavery. “The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery--in common with every other mode of oppression--was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth” (An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837).

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third president, inherited slaves from his father beginning at age 14 and owned slaves all his life, but he introduced legislation throughout his career to abolish slavery.

“How could the man who wrote that ‘All men are created equal’ own slaves? This, in essence, is the question most persistently asked of those who write about Thomas Jefferson, and by all indications it is the thing that contemporary Americans find most vexing about him. ... The question carries a silent assumption that because he practiced slave holding, Jefferson must have somehow believed in it, and must therefore have been a hypocrite. My belief is that this way of asking the question ... is essentially backward, and reflects the pervasive presentism of our time. Consider, for example, how different the question appears when inverted and framed in more historical terms: How did a man who was born into a slave holding society, whose family and admired friends owned slaves, who inherited a fortune that was dependent on slaves and slave labor, decide at an early age that slavery was morally wrong and forcefully declare that it ought to be abolished? Though stating the same case, these are obviously different questions, focusing on different things, but one is framed in a historical context and the other ignores historical circumstances. The rephrased question reveals that what is truly remarkable is that Jefferson went against his society and his own self-interest to denounce slavery and urge its abolition” (Douglas Wilson, “Thomas Jefferson and the Character Issue,” The Atlantic Monthly, November 1992).

In 1778, he was instrumental in having the importation of slaves to Virginia banned. He introduced legislation in the Continental Congress to ban slavery, and it failed to pass by only one vote. He called slavery a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot” (“Thomas Jefferson and Slavery,” Monticello.org). He feared that America would be destroyed by slavery and that it would lead to a civil war, which it did in 1861. As U.S. President, he continued to fight against slavery, but many American slave owners opposed him. He could not free his slaves upon his death, because he owed a large amount of money and his estate, including his slaves, had to be sold to pay the debt. In his Memoir, written at age 77, Jefferson said, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” Black American leaders such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr., praised Jefferson for his efforts to abolish slavery.

Recent scholarship claims that Jefferson fathered at least one child by one of his slaves named Sally Hemings, and this is possible, though it has not been absolutely proven.

We would note that Jefferson, as previously mentioned, was not a professing Christian or a believer in the Bible. Jefferson believed that Jesus was a good man and a great moral teacher, but he did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. As we have seen, Jefferson made his own “Bible” by cutting out everything from the Gospels pertaining to Christ’s virgin birth, miracles, atoning death, and resurrection.

George Washington

George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army and America’s first President, inherited slaves and owned slaves until his death but his thinking about slavery gradually evolved toward an abolitionist position.

At great personal cost to his estate, he vowed that he would not sell his slaves even though he could have benefited financially from doing so. After the Revolutionary War, when he was deeply in debt, the sale of just one slave would have brought him enough income to pay his estate taxes for two years. He also refused to hire out his slaves, because he did not want to break up their families. He said, “To sell the overplus I cannot, because I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in families to any advantage, and to disperse [break up] the families I have an aversion” (Washington letter to Robert Lewis, Aug. 18, 1799, Washington’s Writings, 1980, Vol. 37, p. 338).

Washington was instrumental in having a federal law passed in the first year of his presidency (1789) prohibiting slavery in the new American territories. As a result, the new states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery (“George Washington and the Washington Monument,” www.abschools.k12.wi.us, June 23, 2016).

In 1845, Daniel Webster described Washington’s efforts to abolish slavery in America:

“Soon after the adoption of the Constitution, it was declared by George Washington to be ‘among his first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery might be abolished by law;’ and in various forms in public and private communications, he avowed his anxious desire that ‘a spirit of humanity,’ prompting to ‘the emancipation of the slaves,’ ‘might diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people;’ and he gave the assurance, that ‘so far as his own suffrage would go,’ his influence should not be wanting to accomplish this result” (Webster, “Address to the People of the United States, ... to Lift Our Public Sentiment to a New Platform of Anti-slavery,” Jan. 29, 1845).

In 1793, Washington wrote to his secretary Tobias Lear and “expressed his repugnance at owning slaves and declared the principle reason for selling the land [his western lands] was to raise the finances that would allow him to liberate them” (“George Washington and Slavery,” Wikipedia, citing Dorothy Twohig, “That Species of Property: Washington’s Role in the Controversy over Slavery,” in George Washington Reconsidered by Don Higginbotham; and Henry Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America). “In November the same year [1793], Washington demonstrated in a letter to his friend and neighbor Alexander Spotswood that the reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue, first seen in his letter to Lund Washington in 1778, had become an emphatic principle against ‘selling Negroes, as you would Cattle in the market...’” (Ibid., citing Twohig). “In 1795 and 1796, Washington devised a complicated plan that involved renting out his western lands to tenant farmers to whom he would lease his own slaves, and a similar scheme to lease the dower slaves he controlled to Dr. David Stuart for work on Stuart's Eastern Shore plantation. This plan would have involved breaking up slave families, but it was designed with an end goal of raising enough finances to fund their eventual emancipation (a detail Washington kept secret) and prevent the Custis heirs from permanently splitting up families by sale. None of these schemes could be realized because of his failure to sell or rent land at the right prices, the refusal of the Custis heirs to agree to them and his own reluctance to separate families” (“George Washington and Slavery,” Wikipedia).

Washington’s will called for the liberation of his slaves upon his wife’s death, and he required that young ones be educated to read and write and taught a useful occupation.

Many accounts were told by black men and women about Washington’s humility and lack of racial prejudice. My favorite was told by Primus Hall, the servant of Col. Timothy Pickering, one of General Washington’s favorite officers during the War of Independence. One evening Washington and Pickering talked late into the evening, and Washington asked Hall if there were straw and blankets enough for him to sleep there that night. Hall replied in the affirmative, and when it was time for him to retire, Washington was shown an extra bed in Pickering’s tent made of straw and blankets and laid down to sleep, not knowing that Hall had given him his own humble bed. When Washington woke up in the night and saw Hall sleeping at the Colonel’s desk, he realized what had happened and demanded that Hall share his bed. When Hall expressed surprise and told him not to trouble himself, Washington ordered him in an authoritative voice, “Primus, I say, come and lie down here! There is room for both, and I insist upon it.” Washington moved to one side of the straw bed, and the shocked black man did as he was told. “Primus professes to have been exceedingly shocked at the idea of lying under the same covering with the commander-in-chief, but his tone was so resolute and determined that he could not hesitate. He prepared himself, therefore, and laid himself down by Washington; and on the same straw, and under the same blanket, the General and the Negro servant slept until morning” (Henry Harrington, “Anecdotes of Washington,” Godey’s Magazine and Lady’s Book, June 1849).

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, but he became an abolitionist later in life and liberated his slaves. He was the president of the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. He promoted the idea of educating former slaves and to help them find employment so they could fend for themselves.

John Dickinson

John Dickinson was a member of the First and Second Continental Congress and worked with Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. He was an officer during the War of Independence. He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was elected President of Delaware and President of Pennsylvania. Dickinson is the author of “The Liberty Song” (1768). The original chorus said, “Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all, By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall; In so righteous a cause let us hope to succeed, For heaven approves of each generous deed.”

Dickinson became an abolitionist and freed his slaves in 1776. He devoted his final years to the cause of abolition and donated a considerable amount of his wealth “to the relief of the unhappy.”

Benjamin Rush

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, denounced slavery in his tract On Slave Keeping (1773). He called it a “vice which degrades human nature.” He called on Americans to oppose it. “Remember the eyes of all Europe are fixed upon you, to preserve an asylum for freedom in this country after the last pillars of it are fallen in every other quarter of the globe.”

John Jay

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1789-95), author of five of the Federalist Papers, and Governor of New York, was a leading opponent of slavery. “His first two attempts to end slavery in New York in 1777 and 1785 failed, but a third in 1799 succeeded.” All slaves in New York were emancipated before his death in 1829.

Noah Webster

Noah Webster, who had a major influence on the U.S. Constitution through his 1787 essay An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, called for slavery to be abolished in the United States. He founded an antislavery group called the Connecticut Society for the Promotion of Freedom. His influential Blue-Back Speller included an essay by Thomas Day calling for the abolition of slavery. Day argued that this was in accordance with the nation’s Declaration of Independence. He warned Americans that consistency required that they either acknowledge the rights of the Negroes or surrender their own rights.

The Constitutional Convention

During the Constitutional Convention (1787), when the U.S. Constitution was written and the American nation was formed at the federal level, there was a strong effort to abolish slavery. The opponents of slavery found, though, that it was impossible to form the nation on that basis, since the southern colonies refused to agree with that principle.

America’s Civil War

Those who criticize America on the slavery issue must acknowledge that the nation fought its most terrible and bloody war on that issue. The Civil War was fought between 1861-1865 after southern states seceded from the Union. A majority of Americans were so strongly opposed to slavery that they were willing to go to war against their fellow Americans to settle the matter. The southern states were called the Confederacy, and the northern states, the Union. About 750,000 died in the war.

There were other great issues involved in the American Civil War, particularly the issue of states rights. But slavery was definitely a fundamental issue in the conflict. This was stated plainly by the Confederate leaders.

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, made the following statement on March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia:

“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions--African slavery as it exists among us--the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas [opposite from ‘all men are created equal’]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth” (Stephens, Cornerstone Speech).

In May 1845, Baptists in southern states separated from their Baptist brethren in the northern states and formed the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The founding meeting was held at First Baptist Church of Augusta, Georgia, and delegates voiced their approval of the institution of slavery. (In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized for its former stance on slavery, and in 2012 the SBC elected a black pastor as president.)

On January 27, 1861, Ebenezer Warren, pastor of First Baptist Church of Macon, Georgia, a prominent congregation in the SBC, preached a sermon entitled “Scriptural Vindication of Slavery.” This expressed the thinking of a large number of Southern whites in that day. He said:

“Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible. ... The public mind needs enlightening from the sacred teachings of inspiration on this subject. ... Both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time. ... Because Slavery is right; and because the condition of the slaves affords them all those privileges which would prove substantial blessings to them; and, too, because their Maker has decreed their bondage, and has given them, as a race, capacities and aspirations suited alone to this condition of life.”

The January 1864 issue of the Religious Herald, the official paper of the Virginia Baptists, went so far as to call abolition “the final Antichrist.”

Southern Baptists justified slavery on the basis of the law of Moses. Following are some of the Mosaic principles on slavery:

- A Jewish slave was to be given his liberty after six years (Exodus 21:2), and the liberated servant was to be furnished liberally with goods (De. 15:12-15).
- If a master injured a slave so that he died, the master was to be punished (Ex. 21:20).
- If a slave was injured by his master, he was to be given his liberty (Ex. 21:26).
- Slaves were not to be “ruled with rigour” (Le. 25:53).
- If a slave escaped from his master, he was to be protected (De. 23:15-16).

But a reading of the Bible as a whole actually supports the abolition of slavery, because both the law of Moses and the Lord Jesus Christ taught that the heart and soul of God’s law is to “love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. 19:18Mat. 22:39). It is impossible to obey this divine command while enslaving another individual.

And any concept of racial superiority has zero biblical support. All men are children of Adam. All nations are “made of one blood” (Acts 17:26).

Why, then, did the law of Moses allow for slavery? Jesus explained this in Matthew 19. Like divorce, slavery was allowed because of the hardness of man’s heart and his weak fallen condition (Mat. 19:7-8).

The Baptists in the north recognized that slavery was the chief cause of the war. The Illinois Baptists issued the following statement in June 1863: “We recognize human slavery now, as we have heretofore done, to be the cause of the war and its kindred evils, and we reiterate our convictions that there can be no peace and prosperity in the nation until it is destroyed” B.F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, 1864, p. 754).

The outcome of the American Civil War was the complete abolishment of slavery. In December 1865, the 13th amendment of the Constitution was ratified, which abolished slavery in the United States. It came at great cost in American money and blood.

The Abolition Movement and Theological Liberalism

Many aspects of the Christian abolitionist movement were deeply influenced by theological liberalism and its social gospel.

For example, there was support for slaves rebelling against their masters. David Walker of Boston issued a fiery call for rebellion in his Appeal in Four Articles in 1829. This radical side of the abolitionist movement ignored Bible commands such as 1 Corinthians 7:21-22Ephesians 6:5-8Colossians 3:22-251 Peter 2:18-21.

The liberal social gospel allegorized Scripture to justify rebellion and even murder. For example, Julia Ward Howe’s “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” interpreted the Union armies of the North as the coming of Christ. The “watch-fires” of the Union army camps are the altar of God, and “the burnish’d rows of steel” bayonets are the gospel. Howe was a Unitarian universalist who rejected Jesus Christ as the Son of God and denied the divine inspiration of Scripture. She delivered a pantheistic, universalistic message at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1893 entitled “What Is Religion?” (womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_1893_pwr_howe.htm). Howe’s husband, Samuel, funded John Brown’s murderous insurrection attempt.

Harriet Beecher Stowe is known as “the little woman who started the big war,” as her book Uncle Tom’s Cabin provoked hotheads on both sides of the issue. Her brother Henry Ward Beecher was the liberal pastor of Plymouth Church in Brooklyn. During Beecher’s career there, he opened his pulpit to Unitarians such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Horace Greeley and even to agnostics such as Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Beecher “once argued that a Sharps rifle held a better argument than a Bible for persuading slaveholders--hence these rifles were nicknamed ‘Beecher’s Bibles’ when used to combat the spread of slavery in the Kansas Territory before the American Civil War” (www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/u1encyc.htm). The Beechers were related to Julia Ward Howe.

Slavery has been practiced since the fall of man. It is not a a product of “racism”; it is not an issue of skin color; it is a product of man’s sinful heart because of which he practices far more hatred toward his fellow man than love of neighbor. Jesus described man’s condition with perfect accuracy:

“And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man” (Mark 7:20-23).

Slavery has been practiced by the white man, the black man, the red man, and the yellow man, and every other kind of man.

That is a fact of history.

Slavery was practiced by the Babylonians, the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Persians, the native Brits, the Dans, the Romans, the African kingdoms, the South American kingdoms, the Chinese, Indians, Nepalese, Burmese, Native Americans, the Muslim kingdoms.

That is a fact of man’s wretched history, and it is a reflection of man’s fallen condition.

It is also a fact of history as to who was at the forefront of the war against slavery. It wasn’t the Muslims. It wasn’t the Hindus or the Buddhists or the Anamists or the Atheists or the Humanists. It wasn’t Roman Catholics. It wasn’t the black African nations or the Asian nations or the South American nations or the Eskimos. It was (mostly) white Protestant and Baptist Christians in England and America.

This is a fact of history.

America’s role in the destruction of slavery in modern times is a fascinating study.

Timeline of the American Abolitionist Movement

There was widespread opposition to slavery from the time of the founding of the American colonies, and many of the Founding Fathers were opponents, but abolition became a groundswell movement during the Second Great Awakening, both in America and England. The culmination in America was the Civil War of 1860-65, after which slavery was officially abolished. Following are some of the important events:
1794 - The U.S. government passes a law prohibiting slavery in new American territories
------- The American Convention for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery is founded
1803 - The Pennsylvania Abolition Society is founded; Benjamin Rush, an American Founding Father, is elected the first president
1807 - The British government abolishes the slave trade, though the owning of slaves in British colonies is still legal
1808 - The British forms the West Africa Squadron to capture slave ships. Between 1808-1860, the Squadron captures 1,600 slave ships and frees 150,000 slaves
------- The U.S. government outlaws American participation in the African slave trade
1821 - The first American anti-slavery newspaper is founded (The Genius of Universal Emancipation)
1822 - Denmark Vessey unsuccessfully tries to lead a slave revolt in South Carolina
1830s - The Underground Railway is established to help runaway slaves escape to the northern states and Canada
1831 - Nate Turner leads a slave revolt in Virginia, resulting in stricter slave laws
1833 - Great Britain abolishes slavery
1833 - The American Antislavery Society is organized and within five years it has more than 1,350 chapters and 250,000 members
1852 - Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which is influential in stirring abolitionist sentiment
1856 - The Republican Party is formed in America as a coalition of various political groups opposing slavery
1859 - John Brown unsuccessfully tries to capture the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia, to launch a slave revolt
1860 - Abraham Lincoln is elected U.S. President, the first Republican party president
1861 - Eleven Southern states secede from the Union after the election of Abraham Lincoln
1862 - “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” by Julia Ward Howe is published
1863 - Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery in the Confederate States
1865 - The Civil War ends and the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishes slavery in all states

AMERICA AND SLAVERY

From its founding, America has been a mixed multitude of people of varying principles, including religious principles.

Early America was strongly influenced by the Bible and most of its citizens were professing Christians of some sort, but there were all sorts of Christians, some born again and some “nominal,” trusting in baptism and good works rather than in a personal relationship with Christ, and there were also many non-Christians.

Even in the Plymouth Colony founded by the Pilgrims who came over on the Mayflower in 1620, there were nominal Christians and some non-Christians.

As on many issues, early America was divided on the issue of slavery.

On one side were those who believed in slavery and kept slaves.

On the other side, there were many in America who were opposed to slavery, even during the Colonial era. These understood that it was wrong and hypocritical to proclaim liberty for all men while keeping some men in bondage to slavery.

For example, Samuel Hopkins of Rhode Island sent a pamphlet to the Continental Congress “asking how they and Americans, so adverse to enslavement by British Parliament, could overlook the slavery of African-Americans ‘who have as good a claim to liberty as themselves’” (Angela Kamrath, The Miracle of America).

In 1772, Baptist pastor John Allen of Boston preached that slavery violates the laws of God and the natural rights of men. He stated this in An Oration on the Beauties of Liberty, or The Essential Right of the Americans.

In 1791, Jonathan Edwards, famous Great Awakening preacher, published “The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade.” He cited Christ’s “Golden Rule” as evidence that slavery is not God’s will.

Hopkins, Allen, and Edwards represented the thinking of large numbers of Americans in that day.

American Quakers opposed slavery beginning in the 1670s. William Penn, a Quaker and the founder of Pennsylvania in 1682, owned slaves for a few years, but he treated them well and eventually freed them. In 1737, Quaker Benjamin Lay published a paper against “All Slave Keepers that Keep the Innocent in Bondage.” He called slavery “a notorious sin.” In 1774, the Quakers ended slavery among themselves, and those who persisted in owning slaves were expelled. Famous Quaker poet John Greenleaf Whittier was a strong voice against slavery. He edited the Pennsylvania Freeman and promoted freedom for all men. Quakers had a prominent role in the Underground Railroad that helped southern slaves escape their masters. Quakers boycotted slave-produced goods in an attempt to put financial pressure on slaveholders. Philadelphia, the capital of Pennsylvania, was the home of the first black denomination in America, the African Methodist Episcopal Church. Pennsylvania was the first American state to pass a slavery abolition act. This was in 1780, even before the end of the War of Independence. In Britain, Quakers were at the forefront of the movement that abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1838.

The American Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833 under the leadership of William Lloyd Garrison, and within seven years there were 2,000 auxiliary societies with a total membership of 150,000 to 200,000. This shows that anti-slavery sentiment was widespread in America.

Slavery in the 18th Century

It is important to understand the historical context. Slavery was widely accepted the world over at the time of America’s founding in the 18th century.

It is an institution nearly as old as man. Man’s “inhumanity” is the product of his sin nature. Jesus said, “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Mt. 15:19). The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia practiced slavery, as did the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek, and the Roman empires. Slavery was practiced in China and India and the Americas; it was practiced by the Mongols and Huns and Vikings and North American Indians.

From ancient times, Africans enslaved Africans. In many parts of Africa, a third of the population were enslaved by their fellow blacks beginning in AD 1300 and earlier, and in some parts of Africa the percentage was even higher. For the most part, it was black Africans who captured African slaves in the interior of the continent and brought them to the coasts for sale. Black tribal leaders, such as the kings of Dohomey, would raid and capture blacks from neighboring tribes and sell them. In the 1840s, King Gezo of Dahomey said, “The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth ... the mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph over an enemy reduced to slavery” (Ibn Warraq, Why the West Is Best: A Muslim Apostate’s Defense of Liberal Democracy, 2011, p. 114). What a wretched lullaby!

Islam practiced slavery from its inception in the seventh century AD and was at the heart of the slave trade on the Barbary Coast of Africa for hundreds of years. We have documented this in The Bible and Islam, which is available as a free eBook from www.wayoflife.org.

England had a major role in the Atlantic slave trade in the 17th and 18th centuries. So did the Portuguese, Dutch, and French.

America’s Founding Fathers and Slavery

Like the early American population as a whole, the American Founders represented many beliefs.

Some were Bible-believing Christians who had personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Following are a few examples:

Samuel Adams (1722-1803), signer of the Declaration of Independence, Governor of Massachusetts. In his last will and testament he wrote “I ... [rely] upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins” (Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, edited by William Wells, 1865, Vol. III, p. 379).

Charles Carroll (1737-1822), signer of the Declaration of Independence, framer of the Bill of Rights. “On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts” (Letter from Carroll to Charles Wharton, Sep. 27, 1825).

Robert Treat Paine (1731-1814), signer of the Declaration of Independence, Attorney General of Massachusetts. “I am constrained to express my adoration of the Supreme Being, the Author of my existence, in full belief of His Providential goodness and His forgiving mercy revealed to the world through Jesus Christ, through whom I hope for never ending happiness in a future state” (Last Will and Testament, attested May 11, 1814).

Benjamin Rush (1746-1813), signer of the Declaration of Independence and “Father of American Medicine.” “My only hope of salvation is in the infinite transcendent love of God manifested to the world by the death of His Son upon the Cross. Nothing but His blood will wash away my sins. I rely exclusively upon it” (The Autobiography of Benjamin Rush).

Roger Sherman (1721-1793), signer of the Declaration of Independence, framer of the Bill of Rights. “I believe that God ... did send His own Son to become man, die in the room and stead of sinners, and thus to lay a foundation for the offer of pardon and salvation to all mankind, so as all may be saved who are willing to accept the Gospel offer.” (The Life of Roger Sherman by Lewis Boutell, 1896, pp. 271-273).

John Witherspoon (1723-1794), signer of the Declaration of Independence. “... no man, whatever be his character or whatever be his hope, shall enter into rest unless he be reconciled to God though Jesus Christ” (The Works of John Witherspoon, 1815, Vol. V, pp. 245, 267).

On the other hand, some of America’s founders were skeptics who did not accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and did not believe the Bible to be God’s infallible Word. The most prominent examples are Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

Jefferson was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, the first Secretary of State under George Washington, and the third President of the United States. Jefferson made his own “Bible” by cutting out of the Gospels everything pertaining to the divine and miraculous in Jesus’ life. Jefferson’s “Bible” left out references to angels, prophecy, Christ’s deity, the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurrection.

Franklin, who has been called “the first American,” was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution. Like Jefferson, he wanted to maintain the moral code of Christianity as a rule for society, but he did not believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. Franklin was a great fan of the blasphemous French skeptic Voltaire. Instead of bringing his grandson Benny Bache to the feet of Jesus, Franklin sought Voltaire’s blessing on the boy (H.W. Brands, The First American, p. 563). Franklin participated enthusiastically in a eulogy following Voltaire’s death. It was held in a hall dressed in black and lit by candles. Franklin took his Masonic crown and laid it at the foot of a large painting of Voltaire (The First American, p. 565). At the end of his life, Franklin said “I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to [Christ’s] divinity.”

This being said, most of America’s Founding Fathers were opposed to slavery.

John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States and son of John Adams, second President of the U.S., was called the “Hell Hound of Abolition” for his persistent efforts to end slavery. In 1837, he said that the nation’s founders were opposed to slavery. “The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery--in common with every other mode of oppression--was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth” (An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport, at Their request, on the Sixty-first Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1837).

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s third president, inherited slaves from his father beginning at age 14 and owned slaves all his life, but he introduced legislation throughout his career to abolish slavery.

“How could the man who wrote that ‘All men are created equal’ own slaves? This, in essence, is the question most persistently asked of those who write about Thomas Jefferson, and by all indications it is the thing that contemporary Americans find most vexing about him. ... The question carries a silent assumption that because he practiced slave holding, Jefferson must have somehow believed in it, and must therefore have been a hypocrite. My belief is that this way of asking the question ... is essentially backward, and reflects the pervasive presentism of our time. Consider, for example, how different the question appears when inverted and framed in more historical terms: How did a man who was born into a slave holding society, whose family and admired friends owned slaves, who inherited a fortune that was dependent on slaves and slave labor, decide at an early age that slavery was morally wrong and forcefully declare that it ought to be abolished? Though stating the same case, these are obviously different questions, focusing on different things, but one is framed in a historical context and the other ignores historical circumstances. The rephrased question reveals that what is truly remarkable is that Jefferson went against his society and his own self-interest to denounce slavery and urge its abolition” (Douglas Wilson, “Thomas Jefferson and the Character Issue,” The Atlantic Monthly, November 1992).

In 1778, he was instrumental in having the importation of slaves to Virginia banned. He introduced legislation in the Continental Congress to ban slavery, and it failed to pass by only one vote. He called slavery a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot” (“Thomas Jefferson and Slavery,” Monticello.org). He feared that America would be destroyed by slavery and that it would lead to a civil war, which it did in 1861. As U.S. President, he continued to fight against slavery, but many American slave owners opposed him. He could not free his slaves upon his death, because he owed a large amount of money and his estate, including his slaves, had to be sold to pay the debt. In his Memoir, written at age 77, Jefferson said, “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.” Black American leaders such as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr., praised Jefferson for his efforts to abolish slavery.

Recent scholarship claims that Jefferson fathered at least one child by one of his slaves named Sally Hemings, and this is possible, though it has not been absolutely proven.

We would note that Jefferson, as previously mentioned, was not a professing Christian or a believer in the Bible. Jefferson believed that Jesus was a good man and a great moral teacher, but he did not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. As we have seen, Jefferson made his own “Bible” by cutting out everything from the Gospels pertaining to Christ’s virgin birth, miracles, atoning death, and resurrection.

George Washington

George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army and America’s first President, inherited slaves and owned slaves until his death but his thinking about slavery gradually evolved toward an abolitionist position.

At great personal cost to his estate, he vowed that he would not sell his slaves even though he could have benefited financially from doing so. After the Revolutionary War, when he was deeply in debt, the sale of just one slave would have brought him enough income to pay his estate taxes for two years. He also refused to hire out his slaves, because he did not want to break up their families. He said, “To sell the overplus I cannot, because I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in families to any advantage, and to disperse [break up] the families I have an aversion” (Washington letter to Robert Lewis, Aug. 18, 1799, Washington’s Writings, 1980, Vol. 37, p. 338).

Washington was instrumental in having a federal law passed in the first year of his presidency (1789) prohibiting slavery in the new American territories. As a result, the new states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery (“George Washington and the Washington Monument,” www.abschools.k12.wi.us, June 23, 2016).

In 1845, Daniel Webster described Washington’s efforts to abolish slavery in America:

“Soon after the adoption of the Constitution, it was declared by George Washington to be ‘among his first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery might be abolished by law;’ and in various forms in public and private communications, he avowed his anxious desire that ‘a spirit of humanity,’ prompting to ‘the emancipation of the slaves,’ ‘might diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people;’ and he gave the assurance, that ‘so far as his own suffrage would go,’ his influence should not be wanting to accomplish this result” (Webster, “Address to the People of the United States, ... to Lift Our Public Sentiment to a New Platform of Anti-slavery,” Jan. 29, 1845).

In 1793, Washington wrote to his secretary Tobias Lear and “expressed his repugnance at owning slaves and declared the principle reason for selling the land [his western lands] was to raise the finances that would allow him to liberate them” (“George Washington and Slavery,” Wikipedia, citing Dorothy Twohig, “That Species of Property: Washington’s Role in the Controversy over Slavery,” in George Washington Reconsidered by Don Higginbotham; and Henry Wiencek, An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America). “In November the same year [1793], Washington demonstrated in a letter to his friend and neighbor Alexander Spotswood that the reluctance to sell slaves at a public venue, first seen in his letter to Lund Washington in 1778, had become an emphatic principle against ‘selling Negroes, as you would Cattle in the market...’” (Ibid., citing Twohig). “In 1795 and 1796, Washington devised a complicated plan that involved renting out his western lands to tenant farmers to whom he would lease his own slaves, and a similar scheme to lease the dower slaves he controlled to Dr. David Stuart for work on Stuart's Eastern Shore plantation. This plan would have involved breaking up slave families, but it was designed with an end goal of raising enough finances to fund their eventual emancipation (a detail Washington kept secret) and prevent the Custis heirs from permanently splitting up families by sale. None of these schemes could be realized because of his failure to sell or rent land at the right prices, the refusal of the Custis heirs to agree to them and his own reluctance to separate families” (“George Washington and Slavery,” Wikipedia).

Washington’s will called for the liberation of his slaves upon his wife’s death, and he required that young ones be educated to read and write and taught a useful occupation.

Many accounts were told by black men and women about Washington’s humility and lack of racial prejudice. My favorite was told by Primus Hall, the servant of Col. Timothy Pickering, one of General Washington’s favorite officers during the War of Independence. One evening Washington and Pickering talked late into the evening, and Washington asked Hall if there were straw and blankets enough for him to sleep there that night. Hall replied in the affirmative, and when it was time for him to retire, Washington was shown an extra bed in Pickering’s tent made of straw and blankets and laid down to sleep, not knowing that Hall had given him his own humble bed. When Washington woke up in the night and saw Hall sleeping at the Colonel’s desk, he realized what had happened and demanded that Hall share his bed. When Hall expressed surprise and told him not to trouble himself, Washington ordered him in an authoritative voice, “Primus, I say, come and lie down here! There is room for both, and I insist upon it.” Washington moved to one side of the straw bed, and the shocked black man did as he was told. “Primus professes to have been exceedingly shocked at the idea of lying under the same covering with the commander-in-chief, but his tone was so resolute and determined that he could not hesitate. He prepared himself, therefore, and laid himself down by Washington; and on the same straw, and under the same blanket, the General and the Negro servant slept until morning” (Henry Harrington, “Anecdotes of Washington,” Godey’s Magazine and Lady’s Book, June 1849).

Benjamin Franklin

Benjamin Franklin owned slaves, but he became an abolitionist later in life and liberated his slaves. He was the president of the Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage. He promoted the idea of educating former slaves and to help them find employment so they could fend for themselves.

John Dickinson

John Dickinson was a member of the First and Second Continental Congress and worked with Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence. He was an officer during the War of Independence. He was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and was elected President of Delaware and President of Pennsylvania. Dickinson is the author of “The Liberty Song” (1768). The original chorus said, “Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all, By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall; In so righteous a cause let us hope to succeed, For heaven approves of each generous deed.”

Dickinson became an abolitionist and freed his slaves in 1776. He devoted his final years to the cause of abolition and donated a considerable amount of his wealth “to the relief of the unhappy.”

Benjamin Rush

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, denounced slavery in his tract On Slave Keeping (1773). He called it a “vice which degrades human nature.” He called on Americans to oppose it. “Remember the eyes of all Europe are fixed upon you, to preserve an asylum for freedom in this country after the last pillars of it are fallen in every other quarter of the globe.”

John Jay

John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1789-95), author of five of the Federalist Papers, and Governor of New York, was a leading opponent of slavery. “His first two attempts to end slavery in New York in 1777 and 1785 failed, but a third in 1799 succeeded.” All slaves in New York were emancipated before his death in 1829.

Noah Webster

Noah Webster, who had a major influence on the U.S. Constitution through his 1787 essay An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, called for slavery to be abolished in the United States. He founded an antislavery group called the Connecticut Society for the Promotion of Freedom. His influential Blue-Back Speller included an essay by Thomas Day calling for the abolition of slavery. Day argued that this was in accordance with the nation’s Declaration of Independence. He warned Americans that consistency required that they either acknowledge the rights of the Negroes or surrender their own rights.

The Constitutional Convention

During the Constitutional Convention (1787), when the U.S. Constitution was written and the American nation was formed at the federal level, there was a strong effort to abolish slavery. The opponents of slavery found, though, that it was impossible to form the nation on that basis, since the southern colonies refused to agree with that principle.

America’s Civil War

Those who criticize America on the slavery issue must acknowledge that the nation fought its most terrible and bloody war on that issue. The Civil War was fought between 1861-1865 after southern states seceded from the Union. A majority of Americans were so strongly opposed to slavery that they were willing to go to war against their fellow Americans to settle the matter. The southern states were called the Confederacy, and the northern states, the Union. About 750,000 died in the war.

There were other great issues involved in the American Civil War, particularly the issue of states rights. But slavery was definitely a fundamental issue in the conflict. This was stated plainly by the Confederate leaders.

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, made the following statement on March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia:

“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions--African slavery as it exists among us--the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas [opposite from ‘all men are created equal’]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth” (Stephens, Cornerstone Speech).

In May 1845, Baptists in southern states separated from their Baptist brethren in the northern states and formed the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). The founding meeting was held at First Baptist Church of Augusta, Georgia, and delegates voiced their approval of the institution of slavery. (In 1995, the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized for its former stance on slavery, and in 2012 the SBC elected a black pastor as president.)

On January 27, 1861, Ebenezer Warren, pastor of First Baptist Church of Macon, Georgia, a prominent congregation in the SBC, preached a sermon entitled “Scriptural Vindication of Slavery.” This expressed the thinking of a large number of Southern whites in that day. He said:

“Slavery forms a vital element of the Divine Revelation to man. Its institution, regulation, and perpetuity, constitute a part of many of the books of the Bible. ... The public mind needs enlightening from the sacred teachings of inspiration on this subject. ... Both Christianity and Slavery are from heaven; both are blessings to humanity; both are to be perpetuated to the end of time. ... Because Slavery is right; and because the condition of the slaves affords them all those privileges which would prove substantial blessings to them; and, too, because their Maker has decreed their bondage, and has given them, as a race, capacities and aspirations suited alone to this condition of life.”

The January 1864 issue of the Religious Herald, the official paper of the Virginia Baptists, went so far as to call abolition “the final Antichrist.”

Southern Baptists justified slavery on the basis of the law of Moses. Following are some of the Mosaic principles on slavery:

- A Jewish slave was to be given his liberty after six years (Exodus 21:2), and the liberated servant was to be furnished liberally with goods (De. 15:12-15).
- If a master injured a slave so that he died, the master was to be punished (Ex. 21:20).
- If a slave was injured by his master, he was to be given his liberty (Ex. 21:26).
- Slaves were not to be “ruled with rigour” (Le. 25:53).
- If a slave escaped from his master, he was to be protected (De. 23:15-16).

But a reading of the Bible as a whole actually supports the abolition of slavery, because both the law of Moses and the Lord Jesus Christ taught that the heart and soul of God’s law is to “love thy neighbour as thyself” (Lev. 19:18Mat. 22:39). It is impossible to obey this divine command while enslaving another individual.

And any concept of racial superiority has zero biblical support. All men are children of Adam. All nations are “made of one blood” (Acts 17:26).

Why, then, did the law of Moses allow for slavery? Jesus explained this in Matthew 19. Like divorce, slavery was allowed because of the hardness of man’s heart and his weak fallen condition (Mat. 19:7-8).

The Baptists in the north recognized that slavery was the chief cause of the war. The Illinois Baptists issued the following statement in June 1863: “We recognize human slavery now, as we have heretofore done, to be the cause of the war and its kindred evils, and we reiterate our convictions that there can be no peace and prosperity in the nation until it is destroyed” B.F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, 1864, p. 754).

The outcome of the American Civil War was the complete abolishment of slavery. In December 1865, the 13th amendment of the Constitution was ratified, which abolished slavery in the United States. It came at great cost in American money and blood.

The Abolition Movement and Theological Liberalism

Many aspects of the Christian abolitionist movement were deeply influenced by theological liberalism and its social gospel.

For example, there was support for slaves rebelling against their masters. David Walker of Boston issued a fiery call for rebellion in his Appeal in Four Articles in 1829. This radical side of the abolitionist movement ignored Bible commands such as 1 Corinthians 7:21-22Ephesians 6:5-8Colossians 3:22-251 Peter 2:18-21.

The liberal social gospel allegorized Scripture to justify rebellion and even murder. For example, Julia Ward Howe’s “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” interpreted the Union armies of the North as the coming of Christ. The “watch-fires” of the Union army camps are the altar of God, and “the burnish’d rows of steel” bayonets are the gospel. Howe was a Unitarian universalist who rejected Jesus Christ as the Son of God and denied the divine inspiration of Scripture. She delivered a pantheistic, universalistic message at the Parliament of the World’s Religions in 1893 entitled “What Is Religion?” (womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_1893_pwr_howe.htm). Howe’s husband, Samuel, funded John Brown’s murderous insurrection attempt.

Harriet Beecher Stowe is known as “the little woman who started the big war,” as her book Uncle Tom’s Cabin provoked hotheads on both sides of the issue. Her brother Henry Ward Beecher was the liberal pastor of Plymouth Church in Brooklyn. During Beecher’s career there, he opened his pulpit to Unitarians such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Horace Greeley and even to agnostics such as Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). Beecher “once argued that a Sharps rifle held a better argument than a Bible for persuading slaveholders--hence these rifles were nicknamed ‘Beecher’s Bibles’ when used to combat the spread of slavery in the Kansas Territory before the American Civil War” (www.embassy.org.nz/encycl/u1encyc.htm). The Beechers were related to Julia Ward Howe.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reflections on Southern Slavery and Leftist Slavery

The statue of the world’s greatest slave owner stands in Seattle.

 

Daniel Greenfield
SEE: https://cms.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/07/leftist-slavery-was-worse-southern-slavery-daniel-greenfield;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Under 400,000 slaves were brought to America. Those enslaved African people represented only 3.6% of the transatlantic slave trade. By the Civil War, there were under 4 million black slaves in America.

Over 20 million people were imprisoned by Soviet leftists in the gulag system.

While the peak slave labor population in the leftist slave camps was less than the peak slave population in the South, the death rate ranged from 5 percent to 25 percent depending on the period.

Under 2 million people died as a result of the brutal leftist system of slave labor camps and that was a fraction of the full number of people killed through various means by the Socialist system.

Gulag labor was murderous with prisoners sent to work in uranium mines or to labor outdoors chopping trees and digging canals in subzero weather with little food and less protection. At one gulag, prisoners labored in uranium mines, breathing in radioactive dust, and dying within two years of cancer and leukemia. The sick were then used for medical experiments by Socialist medicine before they died.

These horrors were not some relic of the Stalin era, but were being carried out as recently as the 1970s.

The 1619 Project of the New York Times falsely claimed that America was built on slave labor, but before that revisionist history project, the paper had run a Red Century project defending Communism when Soviet Socialism was, from Moscow University to the White Sea-Baltic Canal, built on slave labor.

At its peak, as many as 1 in 5 Soviet construction workers were convict laborers and massive slave labor projects like the White Sea-Baltic Canal, hailed as triumphs of socialism, killed tens of thousands.

When Senator Bernie Sanders visited the USSR, he gushed over its socialist achievements, such as the Moscow Metro. The massive system had been built by Stalin to showcase the achievements of socialism and the Putin regime restored the old plaque reading, “Stalin raised us to be loyal to the nation, inspired us to labor and great deeds”.  But it wasn’t inspiration that built the Moscow Metro: it was slave labor.

"There's a reason Joseph Stalin had gulags," Kyle Jurek, a Bernie Sanders field organizer had argued, calling it a model for breaking Americans of their “privilege” by sending them to “go break rocks.”

Nobody would propose a return to the plantations, but forced labor is still popular with some socialists.

The Soviet Socialist system was built on forced labor, from the collective farms that peasants were not allowed to leave, to mandatory ‘volunteer’ brigades like those that helped build the Moscow Metro or harvested crops, to a massive slave trade in convict labor which built roads, tunnels, and canals, mined and did every form of dirty work, and was traded back and forth to Socialist civilian organizations.

The Soviet Socialist achievements that American leftists praised were the product of slavery.

While the Left demands that America make a reckoning for 19th century slavery, its leading figures, from Bernie Sanders to Noam Chomsky, were apologists for socialist slavery, and its leading institutions, from the New York Times to the Pulitzer Institute, both promoters of the 1619 Project, were complicit in covering up slavery and mass murder by their socialist allies in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Today’s ‘woke’ corporations, like Nike and Coca-Cola, benefit from slave labor in Communist China’s systems of labor camps, state-run and civilian factories, which encompass over 1 million people.

The brands telling Americans that they need a reckoning with slavery have their own reckoning.

Slavery has been a fundamental feature of the socialist regimes admired by American leftists expressed in murderous abbreviations from the Soviet GULAG to Cuba’s UMAP camps for Christians, to China’s RTL. The Khmer Rogue in Cambodia turned forced labor into genocide and this was not all that unusual.

Southern slave owners, especially once shipping in new slaves was banned, wanted to profit from selling slaves and this resulted in a high population growth among enslaved African people, while the Soviet Socialist gulags, like their National Socialist counterparts, extracted maximum labor from their prisoners with no interest in their physical survival. They knew where they could easily get more slaves.

The Nazis and the Communists operated unsustainable slave economies that always needed more bodies. National Socialist and Communist slave labor served a dual purpose, obtaining free labor for state industries (and in Germany, politically connected industries), and disposing of unwanted people.

The National Socialists used slave labor to clear away unwanted conquered populations, Jews, and others who were not official members of the Herrenvolk, while building up the industries of conquest. The Soviet Socialists also used the gulag system, along with mass starvation and executions, to clear away unwanted ethnic and national minorities, including again Jews, but also to purge their system.

The Soviet Socialists used slave labor to eliminate potential dissent and terrorize the population on a much larger scale because while the National Socialists had used mass murder to achieve racial homogeneity, they used it to obtain political homogeneity as the basis for their system.

Both the National Socialists and Soviet Socialists envisioned an endless supply of slave labor that could be obtained through conquest. The South had internalized slavery, while the Socialists externalized it.

Socialist slavery was not an aberration: it was the essential idea of Marxism and of Socialism.

Article 12 of the 1936 Soviet constitution stated that, "in the USSR, work is a duty" and that the "principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his work."

That was a quote from Karl Marx.

In that same paragraph, Marx had described the ideal Communist society as a place where, "labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want." The message echoed the one placed over the gates of National Socialist concentration camps, "Arbeit Macht Frei" or "Work makes you free."

The Soviet Union, like other socialist regimes, had defined itself as a worker state. But the nature of work, where and how one worked, was defined by the institutions of the state. Slavery was the founding principle of socialism which defined life around labor, not for the self, but for the collective good.

“Socialism is the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism," Adolf Hitler had articulated in a Munich speech titled, Why We Are Anti-Semites.

Parasitism was the basis for forced labor in the Soviet Union and other Socialist regimes where the state defined who workers were and what legitimate work was. Citizenship in a workers’ state meant a willingness to labor on those terms. A failure to do so was parasitism which would be punished with redemption through labor. The “Arbeit Macht Frei” message of National Socialist concentration camps, derived from a 19th century novel about the moral redemption of forced labor, and the celebratory Soviet songs and poems of forced labor celebrated work as the true religion of a socialist state.

Southern slave owners justified the subjugation of human beings by asserting that forced labor gave meaning to inferior people, uplifting them from a degraded condition, and taking care of them.

Socialist slavery was based on the same premise and provided justification for Southern slavery.

"The dissociation of labor and disintegration of society, which liberty and free competition occasion, is especially injurious to the poorer class; for besides the labor necessary to support the family, the poor man is burdened with the care of finding a home, and procuring employment," George Fitzhugh, one of the most vocal advocates for the Southern plantation, had argued. "Slavery relieves our slaves of these cares altogether, and slavery is a form, and the very best form of socialism."

Fitzhugh believed that not only black people, but that most people should be slaves to protect them from the fierce competition of a capitalist society.

"With negro slaves, their wages invariably increase with their wants. The master increases the provision for the family as the family increases in number and helplessness. It is a beautiful example of communism, where each one receives not according to his labor, but according to his wants," he wrote.

The doctrines of Socialism helped inspire Southern slave owners to defend the plantation.

"Every plantation is an organized community," Rep. William Grayson had mused. "A phalanstery, as Fourier, would call it, where all work, where each member gets sustenance and a home."

Fitzhugh had also argued that, "a well-conducted farm in the South is a model of associated labor that Fourier might envy."

Charles Fourier, the utopian socialist who coined the term 'feminism', had wanted to wipe out the Jews by sending them to labor in his phalansteries, massive utopian communes, as his original vision of utopian socialist communes had given way to labor camps that would break the enemies of socialism.

Socialism is less efficient and produces less value, therefore it demands more cheap labor. Or slaves.

Socialist slavery begins with idealistic visions, but all the schemes based on willing cooperation fall through. The peasants cling to their land and have to be forced into communes. The workers don’t want to work and have to be compelled. The volunteers don’t show up and volunteering becomes mandatory.

The idealism turns into ossified academic jargon disguising the brutal reality of mass slavery.

America has spent centuries making a difficult and bloody reckoning with slavery. Its leftist enemies have rarely bothered to even make the effort, blaming crimes on individual leaders, on poor conditions, and on interference by America in hellholes like Cambodia that would otherwise have been utopias.

And, no matter how much we learn about the Socialist mass killings, rehabilitation is always waiting.

The Left has failed to make a reckoning with slavery. That’s why the media nods sympathetically at old Communists, and clucks over McCarthyism even as it cancels random people over minor missteps. Its preeminent revisionist historian, Howard Zinn, was a Stalinist, its preeminent thinker, Noam Chomsky, defended the Khmer Rouge, and Bernie Sanders, its presidential candidate, praised the products of Soviet slave labor. These are the crimes of apologists for a contemporary Confederacy: a slave empire that spread around the world, killing millions, and enslaving countless millions more in systems of labor camps that dwarf anything that any Southern plantation owner could have imagined.

Statues of Columbus and Jefferson are under attack, but a statue of the greatest socialist slave owner of modern times still stands in Seattle.

Vladimir Lenin had set up the system of gulags that eventually enslaved and killed millions. Lenin's plans had begun with "obligatory work duty" for class enemies, then evolved to the "most unpleasant forced labor" for members of the "propertied classes", and then to camps full of slaves laboring to build socialism who had been sent there for even the most minor of offenses.

As Feliks Dzerzhinsky, the architect of the Red Terror and the secret police put it, "Even now the labor of prisoners is far from being utilized on public works, and I propose to retain these concentration camps to use the labor of prisoners, gentlemen who live without occupation, those who cannot work without a certain compulsion, or, if we talk of Soviet institutions, then here one should apply this measure of punishment for unscrupulous attitude to work, for negligence, for lateness.”

The purpose of the concentration camp was no longer to punish class enemies, but to find slaves.

That Lenin’s statue still stands in Seattle is a testament to the reality that the Left has made no reckoning with its history of slavery. It has not repented of its crimes against millions of people.

The greatest slave empires of the modern era were not Southern, they were Socialist.

Conservatives have spent enough time defending the Founding Fathers. It is time to stop being on the defensive and attack the leftist proponents of modern slavery who propose to tear down their statues.

 

THEIR OWN WORDS: SLAVERY AND AMERICA’S FOUNDING FATHERS

Their Own Words: Slavery and America’s Founding Fathers

BY RENEE NAL

SEE: https://rairfoundation.com/their-own-words-slavery-and-americas-founding-fathers/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

This article has been partially reprinted from TrevorLoudon.com, with permission.

The most powerful tool in the Marxist toolbox is lies. Lies lead people of goodwill down inconceivable paths. In nazi Germany, it was lies that convinced Jewish people to get on the trains to their deaths. In America, lies about the founding of America are used to slander the founding fathers and to indoctrinate young people into hating the most benevolent, kindest, most prosperous country that ever existed.

The best lies contain a grain of truth. Black Lives Matter is effective because black lives DO matter. But it is based on the lie that black Americans are being hunted. Outliers such as the death of George Floyd are essential in the Marxist desire to spark revolution.

In the case of the founding fathers, the grain of truth is that some did indeed have slaves. But the lie is that founding fathers were pro-slavery. Anyone who seeks the truth will find it if they look to source documents, not progressively scrubbed history books.

Slavery was not introduced by the founding fathers – it had been in America for well over a century by the time the founding documents were conceived. Many of the founders abhorred slavery, but since it was deeply intertwined with the economy and since the slaves themselves were vulnerable to external forces, many advocated for a “gradual abolition”, but an abolition was required as not only did the practice conflict with the founding documents, but the practiced conflicted with Christianity.

From the Jamestown Rediscovery Project:

“A Dutch slave trader exchanged his cargo of Africans for food in 1619. The Africans became indentured servants, similar in legal position to many poor Englishmen who traded several years labor in exchange for passage to America.” (emphasis added)

These black and white indentured servants stayed in America after they payed their “debt”. One of the original African indentured servants, often cited as the “first slave”, is John Punch, and can be traced back to Barack Obama’s white mother Ann Dunham.

According to the Jamestown study, “[T]he popular conception of a racial-based slave system did not develop until the 1680’s.”

By the time the founding fathers were born, slavery was accepted as the norm and would not be easy to overturn. Before the founding fathers, there was little effort to stop slavery.

That all changed with the Revolution, the “Father of the American Revolution”, was against slavery (Samuel Adams) and helped to change the tone of a nation. Some of the founders complained that slavery was an evil pushed onto the colonies by England.

So the question is, what did the founding fathers actually say about slavery?

In the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote,

“He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . .”

He also stated,

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other.”

Joseph Reed, Revolutionary Officer; Governor of Pennsylvania

“Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind.”

Samuel Adams, Signer of the Declaration,

“But to the eye of reason, what can be more clear than that all men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than that of higher or lower degrees of power of mind and body. . . . Were the talents and virtues which Heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges? . . . No! In the judgment of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority of wisdom and virtue.”

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution

“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.”

From Benjamin Franklin, (1773) lamenting that the British government wanted slavery, even as America opposed it…

“. . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed.”

John Quincy Adams, July 4th, 1837

“The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself.”

Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, lamenting Georgia, North and South Carolina’s continued support for slavery:

“Even the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever.”

Richard Henry Lee, Signer of the Declaration

“Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty.”

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution:

“Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law”

John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration:

“It is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power.”

John Adams, US President, Signer of the Bill of Rights, in a letter to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley (1801)

“…my opinion against it has always been known, and my practice has been so conformable to my sentiments that I have always employed freemen, both as domestics and laborers, and never in my life did I own a slave. The abolition of slavery must be gradual, and accomplished with much caution and circumspection. Violent means and measures would produce greater violations of justice and humanity than the continuance of the practice.”

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution (1772)

“I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature.”

and

That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. . . . [We] earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery – that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage and who . . . are groaning in servile subjection.”

Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Senator from Maryland, State Senator in Maryland

“Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.”

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration,

“Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”

and

The commerce in African slaves has breathed its last in Pennsylvania. I shall send you a copy of our late law respecting that trade as soon as it is published. I am encouraged by the success that has finally attended the exertions of the friends of universal freedom and justice.”

John Jay, President of Continental Congress,

“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part.”

Noah Webster, Responsible for Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

“Justice and humanity require it. Christianity commands it…pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right.”

George Washington

“that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it — but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, & that is by Legislative authority: and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting.”

It is anti-intellectual to reduce the founding fathers to mere “slave-owners”. In fact, the founding fathers laid the foundation for America to claw it’s way out of slavery. All Americans should be warned that those who push a false narrative about the intent and nature of the founding fathers’ view of slavery are cherry-picking history and have their own anti-American agenda. Always read the source documents. Seek to understand the context of the time.

Read more here.

Support our work at RAIR Foundation USA! We are a grassroots activist team and we need your help! Please consider making a donation here: https://rairfoundation.com/donate/



VIRGINIA GOVERNOR NORTHAM ORDERS LEE STATUE REMOVED; STONEY AIMING AT THE REST

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD

SEE: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/35908-northam-orders-lee-statue-removed-stoney-aiming-at-the-rest-gop-sen-chase-fights;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Bowing to the demands of the radical Left and validating its manufactured narrative of “institutional racism,” Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has ordered the removal of Robert E. Lee’s statue (shown) from Richmond’s Monument Avenue.

Northam’s justification for removing Lee — commander of the Confederate Army during the War Between the States — is that the war was principally about “the evils of slavery,” and that “institutional racism” cannot be expunged in Virginia until Lee and his lieutenants are removed from public view.

Concomitant with Northam’s move, leftist Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney, who is black, said he will move to tear down all Confederate statues in the city, pursuant to a new law that permits local and municipal authorities to decide the fate of statues and monuments.

The only serious opposition to the purge comes from State Senator Amanda Chase, the Republican who represents Virginia’s 11th district and is running for governor. Chase is gathering signatures at her campaign website to stop the move.

Time To Wreck Richmond
Nearly forced from office for wearing blackface in medical school, Northam opened his remarks on Lee’s statue with a flat statement of fact: “I’m no historian.”

Then he set about proving it.

Despite the success of the “civil rights movement” and election of the nation’s first black governor, Douglas Wilder, the grandson of slaves, Northam claimed that a “legacy of racism continues,” not just in the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, but also “as part of a system that touches every person and every aspect of our lives, whether we know it or not. But hearts are in different places, and not everyone can see it — or they don’t want to see it.”

Thus, Northam said, “it’s time to acknowledge the reality of institutional racism, even if you can’t see it.” Fighting racism includes, he said, “public policies” that “have kept this reality in place for a long time. That’s why we’ve been working so hard to reform criminal justice laws, expand health care access, make it easier to vote, and so much more.”

“In Virginia, we no longer preach a false version of history,” Northam said. “One that pretends the Civil War was about ‘state rights’ and not the evils of slavery. No one believes that any longer.”

And so “in 2020, we can no longer honor a system that was based on the buying and selling of enslaved people.”

Northam did not observe that state and federal public policies provide taxpayer-subsidized food, education, legal representation, health insurance and medical care at no charge for everyone, including blacks. 

Nor did Northam explain that all those eligible to vote can vote, sometimes even without identification. Even felons can vote thanks to Northam’s leftist predecessor, former Clinton hitman Terry McAuliffe, who added them to the voter rolls to get votes for the Democrat party.

As for the War Between the States, more than a few people believe its causes include tariffs and states’ rights, not least prominent historians, and President Lincoln himself said his cause was union, not abolition or emancipation.

Northam did not explain how Virginia’s “legacy of racism” — the racism symbolized in Lee’s statue — caused the death of a black man in the custody of four cops, two of whom were not white, 1,200 miles away.

Stoney: They’re All Coming Down
As for the rest of the Confederates on Monument Avenue, Stoney announced on Wednesday that statues of President Jefferson Davis and generals Stonewall Jackson and J.E.B. Stuart would also come down, the Associated Press reported.

Unlike Lee’s statue, which is on state-owned land, those statues sit on city-owned property.

“Removing these statues will allow the healing process to begin for so many Black Richmonders and Virginians. Richmond is no longer the Capital of the Confederacy — it is filled with diversity and love for all — and we need to demonstrate that.”

Stoney did not mention the monument for Matthew Fontaine Maury, the Confederate naval officer.

The conservative Chase disagrees: “Northam is giving in to looters and domestic terrorists instead of defending the historical monuments owned by all Virginians,” she said in the statement attached to the petition at her website. Chase continued, “If Northam is unwilling to defend a well lit, highly trafficked piece of Virginia property, he is clearly unwilling to defend your home and your business! We should learn from history not erase it! The radical left will not be satisfied until all white people are purged from our history books.”