Slavery

The Founders Were Flawed. The Nation Is Imperfect. The Constitution Is Still a 'Glorious Liberty Document.'

As part of its ambitious “1619” inquiry into the legacy of slavery, The New York Times revives false 19th century revisionist history about the American founding.

|

Across the map of the United States, the borders of Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona draw a distinct line. It's the 36º30′ line, a remnant of the boundary between free and slave states drawn in 1820. It is a scar across the belly of America, and a vivid symbol of the ways in which slavery still touches nearly every facet of American history.

That pervasive legacy is the subject of a series of articles in The New York Times titled "The 1619 Project." To cover the history of slavery and its modern effects is certainly a worthy goal, and much of the Project achieves that goal effectively. Khalil Gibran Muhammad's portrait of the Louisiana sugar industry, for instance, vividly covers a region that its victims considered the worst of all of slavery's forms. Even better is Nikole Hannah-Jones's celebration of black-led political movements. She is certainly correct that "without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different" and "might not be a democracy at all."

Where the 1619 articles go wrong is in a persistent and off-key theme: an effort to prove that slavery "is the country's very origin," that slavery is the source of "nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional," and that, in Hannah-Jones's words, the founders "used" "racist ideology" "at the nation's founding." In this, the Times steps beyond history and into political polemic—one based on a falsehood and that in an essential way, repudiates the work of countless people of all races, including those Hannah-Jones celebrates, who have believed that what makes America "exceptional" is the proposition that all men are created equal. 

For one thing, the idea that, in Hannah-Jones' words, the "white men" who wrote the Declaration of Independence "did not believe" its words applied to black people is simply false. John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and others said at the time that the doctrine of equality rendered slavery anathema. True, Jefferson also wrote the infamous passages suggesting that "the blacks…are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind," but he thought even that was irrelevant to the question of slavery's immorality. "Whatever be their degree of talent," Jefferson wrote, "it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others." 

The myth that America was premised on slavery took off in the 1830s, not the 1770s. That was when John C. Calhoun, Alexander Stephens, George Fitzhugh, and others offered a new vision of America—one that either disregarded the facts of history to portray the founders as white supremacists, or denounced them for not being so. Relatively moderate figures such as Illinois Sen. Stephen Douglas twisted the language of the Declaration to say that the phrase "all men are created equal" actually meant only white men. Abraham Lincoln effectively refuted that in his debates with Douglas. Calhoun was, in a sense, more honest about his abhorrent views; he scorned the Declaration precisely because it made no color distinctions. "There is not a word of truth in it," wrote Calhoun. People are "in no sense…either free or equal." Indiana Sen. John Pettit was even more succinct. The Declaration, he said, was "a self-evident lie."

It was these men—the generation after the founding—who manufactured the myth of American white supremacy. They did so against the opposition of such figures as Lincoln, Charles Sumner, Frederick Douglass, and John Quincy Adams. "From the day of the declaration of independence," wrote Adams, the "wise rulers of the land" had counseled "to repair the injustice" of slavery, not perpetuate it. "Universal emancipation was the lesson which they had urged upon their contemporaries, and held forth as transcendent and irremissible [sic] duties to their children of the present age." These opponents of the new white supremacist myth were hardly fringe figures. Lincoln and Douglass were national leaders backed by millions who agreed with their opposition to the white supremacist lie. Adams was a former president. Sumner was nearly assassinated in the Senate for opposing white supremacy. Yet their work is never discussed in the Times articles.

In 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney sought to make the myth into the law of the land by asserting in Scott v. Sandford that the United States was created as, and could only ever be, a nation for whites. "The right of property in a slave," he declared, "is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution." This was false: the Constitution contains no legal protection for slavery, and doesn't even use the word. Both Lincoln and Douglass answered Taney by citing the historical record as well as the text of the laws: the founders had called slavery both evil and inconsistent with their principles; they forbade the slave trade and tried to ban it in the territories; nothing in the Declaration or the Constitution established a color line; in fact, when the Constitution was ratified, black Americans were citizens in several states and could even vote. The founders deserved blame for not doing more, but the idea that they were white supremacists, said Douglass, was "a slander upon their memory."

Lincoln provided the most thorough refutation. There was only one piece of evidence, he observed, ever offered to support the thesis that the Declaration's authors didn't mean "all men" when they wrote it: that was the fact that they did not free the slaves on July 4, 1776. Yet there were many other explanations for that which did not prove the Declaration was a lie. Most obviously, some founders may simply have been hypocrites. But that individual failing did not prove that the Declaration excluded non-whites, or that the Constitution guaranteed slavery.

Even some abolitionists embraced the white supremacy legend. William Lloyd Garrison denounced the Constitution because he believed it protected slavery. This, Douglass replied, was false both legally and factually: those who claimed it was pro-slavery had the burden of proof—yet they never offered any. The Constitution's wording gave it no guarantees and provided plentiful means for abolishing it. In fact, none of its words would have to be changed for Congress to eliminate slavery overnight. It was slavery's defenders, he argued, not its enemies, who should fear the Constitution—and secession proved him right. Slaveocrats had realized that the Constitution was, in Douglass's words, "a glorious liberty document," and they wanted out. 

Still, after the war, "Lost Cause" historians rehabilitated the Confederate vision, claiming the Constitution was a racist document, so that the legend remains today. The United States, writes Hannah-Jones, "was founded…as a slavocracy," and the Constitution "preserved and protected slavery." This is once more asserted as an uncontroverted fact—and Lincoln's and Douglass's refutations of it go unmentioned in the Times

No doubt Taney would be delighted at this acceptance of his thesis. What accounts for it? The myth of a white supremacist founding has always served the emotional needs of many people. For racists, it offers a rationalization for hatred. For others, it offers a vision of the founders as arch-villains. Some find it comforting to believe that an evil as colossal as slavery could only be manufactured by diabolically perfect men rather than by quotidian politics and the banality of evil. For still others, it provides a new fable of the fall from Eden, attractive because it implies the possibility of a single act of redemption. If evil entered the world at a single time, by a conscious act, maybe it could be reversed by one conscious revolution. 

The reality is more complex, more dreadful, and, in some ways, more glorious. After all, slavery was abolished, segregation was overturned, and the struggle today is carried on by people ultimately driven by their commitment to the principle that all men are created equal—the principle articulated at the nation's birth. It was precisely because millions of Americans have never bought the notion that America was built as a slavocracy—and have had historical grounds for that denial—that they were willing to lay their lives on the line, not only in the 1860s but ever since, to make good on the promissory note of the Declaration.

Their efforts raise the question of what counts as the historical "truth" about the American Dream. A nation's history, after all, occupies a realm between fact and moral commitments. Like a marriage, a constitution, or an ethical concept like "blame," it encompasses both what actually happened and the philosophical question of what those happenings mean. Slavery certainly happened—but so, too, did the abolitionist movement and the ratification of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. The authors of those amendments viewed them not as changing the Constitution, but as rescuing it from Taney and other mythmakers who had tried to pervert it into a white supremacist document. 

In fact, it would be more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn't slavery but the effort to abolish it. Slavery is among the oldest and most ubiquitous of all human institutions; as the Times series' title indicates, American slavery predated the American Revolution by a century and a half. What's unique about America is that it alone announced at birth the principle that all men are created equal—and that its people have struggled to realize that principle since then. As a result of their efforts, the Constitution today has much more to do with what happened in 1865 than in 1776, let alone 1619. Nothing could be more worthwhile than learning slavery's history, and remembering its victims and vanquishers. But to claim that America's essence is white supremacy is to swallow slavery's fatal lie. 

As usual, Lincoln said it best. When the founders wrote of equality, he explained, they knew they had "no power to confer such a boon" at that instant. But that was not their purpose. Instead, they "set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere." That constant labor, in the generations that followed, is the true source of "nearly everything that has truly made America exceptional."

NEXT: Advice to Entering Law Students - Revisited

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>the legacy of slavery

    people who built the pyramids, line 3 …

    1. It thought now that the labor for the pyramids were not slaves per se, but likely paid conscripts during the off seasons.

      1. some people say the aliens helped. okay, Ancient Rome, line 2 …

        1. okay, Ancient Rome, line 2 …

          You’re ignoring the fact that the switchboard is lit up with calls across Africa and S. Asia from the time of Ancient Egypt *to the current day*.

          A significant portion of the story that gets lost in all of this is that, while English Colonialism and interventionism does conceivably carry some blame for generating supply, Americans were overtly purchasing a product from Africans at a higher price than the Africans could command from Europe, the ME, or S. Asia; even buying up criminals, POWs, and human sacrifices that the Africans would’ve otherwise had to exterminate at cost (which they still did because of reasons more despicable than slavery). As terrible as American slavery was, it was hardly the bottom of the moral barrel for the region or time period.

          If the arc of history is bent the right way 18th and 19th century America is more responsible for identifying the correct way to bend it and bending it correctly than 18th and 19th century Africa. If it’s not bent the right way, then go live wherever slavery didn’t play a part in bending the arc of history in the correct direction.

          1. >>>You’re ignoring the fact
            just going more slowly than you.

            >>>hardly the bottom of the moral barrel for the region or time period.
            was the ultimate point.

            1. I am confused. What does the building of the pyramids have to do with The United States? What is the argument here?

              1. Above your level, eunuch, which isn’t saying much as most things are

                1. FAIL
                  AGAIN!!!

                  1. No, he was very successful. You’re just too stupid to understamd.

        2. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

          …….. Read More

      2. Well of course the people who built the pyramids weren’t slaves – the pyramids were built long before America was discovered so how could there have been any African-Americans to even be slaves?

        1. According to Reason, who doesn’t bereave in borders for America, everyone is America. And they apparently don’t believe in time, or cause and effect either. As everyone anywhere in time and space is American.

      3. That is exactly what they were.

        1. I saw Charlton Heston being whipped as he built the pyramids. But these days scholars discount the story. Building the pyramids was such a massive project that the Egyptians didn’t have the means to compel the vast numbers workers with the paltry weaponry on hand – swords, spears and whips. The workers were apparently paid, and accorded some respect. They were buried near the site of the pyramid, for example.

          1. Right.

            Egyptians definitely used slaves, but something like the pyramids requires a skilled and dedicated labor force, so slaves probably weren’t involved in their construction. But it might be splitting hairs since they like would have been working in quarries to provide the stone that was used.

      4. All slaves are “paid conscripts” otherwise they’d die of starvation in about a week.

        1. The pyramids were a religious project akin to the great Cathedrals of Europe. People wanted to work on them.

          1. I’ve heard that theory but I don’t completely subscribe to it given the scope of the project. I believe there were skilled craftsmen who wanted to work on them, but the Egyptians also needed massive numbers of unskilled labor to simply haul heavy things. I believe most of them were captured slaves.

            1. The evidence suggests otherwise. Sorry.

          2. please let me push a ninety million pound block across Egypt for giggles … in the off seasons

            1. What else was there to do? Remember people believed in the religion. So they thought they were building something for the next world.

              1. Breeding is both more productive and more fun than pushing multi ton stone blocks around.

                1. Says you. Millions of people over thousands of years have disagreed.

                  1. People thinking pushing big ass rocks around is more fun than sex? Evidence required.

                    1. The existence of enormous religious monuments all over the world from every era in history.

                    2. Similarly, the remnants of rope hanging from tree limbs (and some photographic evidence) indicates that Americans enjoyed swinging by the neck, particularly in the southern portions of America.

                    3. Except that for the most for men sex does not produce actual income.

                  2. John here is defending religion as more fun that sex? That is the saddest thing I have ever heard in my life.

                    1. So you’ve never heard your own voice

                    2. What is sad is you are so stupid that is what you think I am saying. Reading comprehension is just not something you do is it?

                    3. OUTED …. JOHN ….. COWARDLY LIAR … PSYCHO BULLY …. AGAIN!!!

                      People thinking pushing big ass rocks around is more fun than sex? Evidence required.

                      John
                      August.21.2019 at 3:18 pm
                      The existence of enormous religious monuments all over the world from every era in history.

                      John here is defending religion as more fun that sex? That is the saddest thing I have ever heard in my life.

                      Nardz
                      August.22.2019 at 2:24 am
                      So you’ve never heard your own voice

                      John
                      August.22.2019 at 7:36 am
                      What is sad is you are so stupid that is what you think I am saying. Reading comprehension is just not something you do is it?

                      Alt-Right Psychos Travel in a Pack … like wild dogs …. then WHINEY PUSSIES SCREECH “persecuted by the left.”

                      America is Trumpfected!

              2. A “libertarian” defending the bureaucracy required to build the Pyramids might be the biggest joke I’ve ever fucking heard in my life.

                Forced labor to do something utterly useless for inbred lunatics with autocratic government power… the libertarian dream!

                1. As far as I know, John has never actually identified as a libertarian.

                  That said you are wrong here. In this case, John is actually contradicting the premise that the Egyptian religious monuments were a product of forced labor but instead saying that the people who worked on them them did so in the belief that in so doing they were serving a higher social purpose. “Higher social purpose” is something that seems to be dear to the hearts of socialists and conservatives alike.

                  The idea that the workers who built the pyramids were well paid and well cared for and not enslaved is completely in keeping with the prevailing archeological and historical record. As I said above, they most likely thought that doing so was the most rational thing within the strictures of the prevailing social and political thought.

                  Of course, it does contradict the Jewish foundational myth of the enslavement and the Exodus (which does upset some conservative christians but not most Jews, who do not have as big a problem with literal interpretation of the Scriptures).

                  1. Slaves did exist in Egypt, they just didn’t necessarily build the pyramids (although their labor may have been used in support industries). I don’t think this contradicts the Old Testament.

                    1. The pyramids aren’t even mentioned in the Bible but they do state the Jewish slaves were used to make bricks. Bricks being a common building material you can draw whatever inference from this you want.

                    2. Yes, but there is absolutely no evidence in the historical record of the account contained in the Old Testament record of either the enslavement of the Hebrews nor the Exodus into the “promised land”.

                    3. That isn’t what you argued. Move the goal post back to its original position.

                    4. Your right, the two are not connected and it’s also quite likely that the Ancient Egyptians had slaves. Slavery in some form or other was almost universal in ancient societies.

                  2. As far as I know, John has never actually identified as a libertarian.

                    He LOATHES libertarianism.

                2. Well, this is John we’re talking about. He’s almost as dumb as you, Tony.

                  1. John may be a lot of things but dumb isn’t one of them.

                    1. ALT-RIGHT THUG DEFENDS ALT-RIGHT THUG

                      Rufus the Monocked Psycho
                      John may be a lot of things but dumb isn’t one of them.

                      John is PROVEN a psycho liar HERE
                      https://reason.com/2019/08/21/the-founders-were-flawed-the-nation-is-imperfect-the-constitution-is-still-a-glorious-liberty-document/#comment-7904745

                      Rufus is PROVEN a whiney liar ……

                    2. absolutely not dumb … just took my fun-time Jewish slavery snark and made a two-day history lesson out of it … which is fine i learn a lot of shit here

            2. Many people are willing, sometimes eager, to do hard, unpleasant work for even modest pay. It’s called “making a living” for probably the majority of people in most countries of the world.

          3. There are surviving pay records for the pyramid work force. That doesn’t prove it was the entire work force, nor that the contractors supplying stones and grave goods didn’t use slaves. We just don’t know. Nor do we know if taking those paid jobs was voluntary.

            OTOH, there’s a mountain of evidence that the Roman economy utilized very large numbers of slaves. Most of Rome’s food was grown on slave plantations in Sicily and southern Italy. Their children were watched over and tutored by slaves. The streets were too crowded for wagons to pass except at night, so their main daytime delivery system was slaves carrying bundles. Etc. To meet the huge demand for slaves, they not only took slaves everywhere their troops reached, but they also enslaved impoverished Romans.

        2. I meant it was more like a peacetime draft than chattel slavery, or like some ideas for mandatory community service.

    2. The biggest missed point about slavery is that it was and continues to be, based on economics. Race plays a part but cheap labor ( none is free, they must be fed clothed, housed, etc.) is cheap labor. Still, be it Europeans (Rome) Americans (Barbary Pirates) Asian (Asia) or African ( U.S. Euro.), one group sees itself as superior and the shackled inferior.

      1. The word “slave” is derived from “slav” – as in “slavic”.
        These people were routinely conquered and servitude was the consequence of losing.
        In a sense, the idea of superiority was proven on the field of battle.
        Don’t want to be a slave?
        Don’t get conquered.

        1. Nardz …. alt-right racist ….JUSTIFIES SLAVERY …. PROUDLY (puke)

          These people were routinely conquered and servitude was the consequence of losing.
          In a sense, the idea of superiority was proven on the field of battle.
          Don’t want to be a slave?
          Don’t get conquered.

          Speaking truth to power.
          America has become TRUMPFECTED

          1. Take it up with the Turks, hihn clown

            1. MOAR Nardz — WORLD CLASS BLOWHARD!!!
              YOU SAID THIS ….

              In a sense, the idea of superiority was proven on the field of battle.
              Don’t want to be a slave?
              Don’t get conquered.

              Now your BULLSHIT changes o …. TURKEY????

              The word “slave” is derived from “slav” – as in “slavic”.

              (SNEER)

              Slavic
              [ˈslävik]
              ADJECTIVE
              relating to or denoting the branch of the Indo-European language family that includes Russian, Ukrainian, and Belorussian (East Slavic), Polish, Czech, Slovak, and Sorbian (West Slavic), and Bulgarian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian, and Slovene (South Slavic).

  2. Across the map of the United States, the borders of Tennessee, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona draw a distinct line. It’s the 36º30′ line,

    Not Tennessee. It’s southern border is 35º.

    The author might mean Arkansas or Missouri, but the scar analogy would be inapt as both were slave states.

    1. Not Tennessee. It’s southern border is 35º.
      Any Tennessee border. It was surrounded by slave states.

      1. The Northern border, not the southern, but Kentucky was a slabe state, too.

        1. On the other hand the northern borders of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona are actually at the 37th Parallel (although the northern boundary of the Texas panhandle is at 36 30.)

  3. The 1619 Project is great, except for the stated purpose of the exercise, which is deliberately founded on a bed of lies and half truths.

    1. The goal here is one the left has been pursuing for a decade or more now: To discredit the Constitution to the point where mobs won’t hang them from the nearest light post when they openly repudiate it.

      They view the Constitution as an obstacle to be removed, and it has to be rendered unpopular before they can safely remove it.

      1. Brett….I would take it one step further. What is under attack are the Judeo-Christian values behind the Constitution.

        1. A little from column A and a little from column B. Whether the attack on individual liberty succeeds by obliterating the letter of the law or the spirit, they don’t care.

        2. Which Judeo-Christian values would that be? I see that term being thrown around a lot, but no one ever enumerates these supposedly unique values.

          1. The value of each individual.

        3. The Treaty of Tripoli
          Negotiated Under Washington
          Signed by Adams
          After UNANIMOUS ratification by the Senate (still roughly half Founding Fathers)

          As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion

          Later rephrased as “Wall of Separation” by Jefferson.

          LIBERTARIANS have the first three Presidents and a UNANIMOUS US Senate.

          The Christian Taliban has … NOTHING … but brainwashed goobers screeching about left-wing conspiracies … as programmed robots of the Authoritarian Right.

          HISTORY
          *Many came her to ESCAPE religious persecution
          *The (un)Holy Inquisition — a PERVERSE union of church and state — was committing moral atrocities until roughly our Civil War The state performed the punishments as ordered by the church (look familiar) … which caused Catholics to be publicly beaten here
          *We had suffered the Salem Witchcraft Trials on our own soil

          Historical Revision = LIES by AUTHORITARIAN STATISTS, both left and right, brainwashing their drones … to usurp power.

          Brainwashed theocrats are told the Treaty of Tripoli is actually a FRAUDULENT translation …. the precious snowflakes BELEEB the Senate ratified a treaty …. wait for it …. written in ARABIC!
          They walk among us. They vote. And they breed.

          (Goobers BLATANTLY LIE about the story here … proving AGAIN that … Left – Right = Zero!)

          1. You’d think even those fucking religious retards would realize how dangerous it is to say one religion is the best and the others are shit. The scope of that religion tends to go smaller and smaller as the zealots take over and before you know it Taliban is in style again.

            1. One big lesson, in 50 years as an activist in retail politics is that even religious conservatives say their leaders are wrong in demanding a theocracy. The followers understand Separation, because their own denomination was persecuted at some time– even Catholics in the colonies, because the inquisition was committing moral atrocities in Europe … until roughly our Civil War!

              So why do they support the Fallwells, Robertsons and Huckabees? Because nobody else defends many of their values, and some are suckered into believing a War on Christianity.

              Anyhow, my greatest supporters were Christian conservatives, both time and money. They knew I was an atheist — they always ask! — but didn’t care. I’d always add, “I’m non-religious, not anti-religious. I defend your right to live your values, as long as you defend mine. That’s what we libertarians believe, as did our Founders. As did Jesus Christ.” Then I’d hold out my hand. They’d be stunned for a second, then shake on it.

      2. Exactly right, Brett. Discredit the constitution, along with justification for “reparations”.

        1. Don’t fuck your neighbor, then kill his wife or the other way around?

        2. Brett hates the Constitution, as proven by his hatred or anyone who doesn’t bow down to his diktats. Typical bellowing authoritarian.

          His ilk cannot stand individual liberty largely because they are the biggest sheeple on the planet. And blowhards.

      3. Thank you! Just read Woodrow Wilson who openly stated that constitutional gov`t was outdated because it limited the authority and power of the enlitened elite who should not be so restrained in their efforts to construct a more perfect society. Its all about power. Beware of those with good intentions! He also resegregated the military. Its not by accident that H. Clinton compared her self to Wilson in a debate. Another great part of his legacy – re-segregating the military and showing Birth of a Nation in the white house.

    2. Let’s not be deceived about the real purpose of this series: There is a presidential election in fifteen months, the incumbent president is a Republican, the Democrats lost the last presidential election because African-American voters did not turn out in the numbers they did in 200 and 2012, and the Democrats and their allies in the media are bound and determined not to let that happen again. Thus, the incessant drumbeat about racism, white supremacy, reparations, and the legacy of slavery.

      Which is not to say that the incumbent Republican president doesn’t play into their hands by providing constant fodder for his opponents. But there clearly is a reason this “1619 Project” was not published during the Obama years.

      1. Damned straight!

      2. I think the NYT is vigorously fanning the embers of a dying fire. For years, you could shut down debate by accusing your opponent of racism – a bad faith argument of accusing your opponent of making a bad faith argument. If you accused your opponent of being fat and stupid and ugly, everybody knows you just lost the argument because you’ve resorted to ad hominem attacks that have nothing to do with the merits of your argument. Accuse somebody of being a racist, however, and they feel compelled to defend themselves from such a serious accusation and suddenly the argument isn’t over whatever it was you were arguing about but about whether or not you’re a racist and whether or not your position is simply derived from your racism.

        But the charge of racism has lost its sting when everybody and everything gets accused – calling somebody a racist carries no more weight than calling them fat and stupid and ugly.

        And yet….here the NYT has just accused the entire country of being racist and here we are defending the country rather than simply dismissing the charge as a bad faith argument designed to derail the conversation.

        The NYT is simply trying to put the sting back into the “racist!” attack but it only stings if you pay any attention to it.

      3. “African-American voters did not turn out in the numbers they did in 200 and 2012”

        The African American voter turn out in AD 200 was zero. In fact I’m fairly sure that there wasn’t US election in that year. 🙂

      4. But there clearly is a reason this “1619 Project” was not published during the Obama years.

        Is it because the 400th anniversary of 1619 is this year, and not when Obama was president?

        1. They could make it the 1610 or 1614 project and exactly nothing would change.

          1. The history doesn’t change, but the marketing sure does.

            Or perhaps you were also wondering why everyone made such a big deal about the Moon Landing earlier this summer?

            1. Using the anniversary of a historical event has zero relationship with trying to spin modern events by looking at history from (current year) – n centuries.

              AFIK nothing of any historical significance in regards to slavery happened in 1619..

              1. If the White Lion landing wasn’t significant in the history of slavery, what events qualify?

                1. The fist slaves in Virginia, not the first slaves in what is now the US. Significant to the history of Virginia. To the history of slavery in America over all, not so much.

                2. “Colonial Virginia is the whole of North America and previous slave importation is of little relevance.” – t. Chinny Chin Chin

      5. But, if all goes well, democrats will sweep everything. Then, they’ll amend the constitution to repeal Citizens United. Once that happens, they will no longer be able to publish stuff like 1619 Project.

        Or something like that. I think there was a step that involved underpants.

      6. “But there clearly is a reason this “1619 Project” was not published during the Obama years.”

        Quit whining, clingers.

      7. Let’s not be deceived on WHY right-wingers goobers LIE about the story here ….. they NEED an excuse, as the Trump Administration collapses on ALL fronts … even trashed by FOX NEWS … now FORCED to admit a recession is likely … on top of their FAILED tax cuts

        FOX NEWS: Trump in big trouble for 2020. Political and economic warning signs there for all to see

        The strong economy Trump touts is anything but and the signs are obvious.

        First, Trump cut taxes and said it would pay for itself. Instead, it has exploded the deficit.

        President Barack Obama inherited a trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2009, but it was down to $600 billion by the time he left office.

        In just two years, thanks to tax cuts, Trump has taken the deficit back to a trillion dollars.

        And on “Fox News Sunday,” White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow admitted that the administration is looking at more tax cuts.

        INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM

        Next, Trump said China would bear the costs of his trade war with them. Really? Trump’s suspension of additional tariffs is an admission that they have been hurting American consumers despite his claims to the contrary.

        In the Fox News Poll, 46 percent said tariffs were hurting the economy. Americans know the cost of everything has increased while their paychecks haven’t increased.

        The fact is Trump’s best economic growth is 3.5 percent in two quarters out of the 10 quarters he’s been in office,
        * 3.5 percent, is Obama’s seventh best quarter,
        * George W. Bush’s eighth best, and
        * Bill Clinton’s 17th best.
        Yet, Trump claims his economy is the best ever. Far from it.

        **** If that wasn’t bad enough, a staggering 59 percent of voters think Trump is tearing the country apart.

        Fox News leaves Trumpsters all alone, twisting in the wind …

        ***Breaking News … White House FORCED to admit a recession is likely … adding ANOTHER failure to … the worst deficts EVER … slower economy tha OBAMA (slowest since BUSH!) … but says a recession would be “short and mild” … when EVERY prior promise has FAILED … and we sink deeper into debt … Which Trump campaigned on PAYING OFF ENTIRELY in 8 years!!!

        Deficit to top $1 trillion per year by 2020, CBO says

        “The federal budget deficit grows substantially over the next several years,… Federal debt is projected to be on a steadily rising trajectory throughout the decade.”

        During debate on the bill, Republican leaders predicted that their proposal would spark massive economic growth that would limit — or even eliminate — additions to the deficit. But the CBO projected Monday that the bill would boost economic growth 0.7 percent over a decade — not enough to keep it from adding to the deficit.

        Libertarians speaking truth to power for over 50 years.
        Left – Right = Zero

        1. Calm down bro.

      8. It wasn’t the 400-year anniversary then? Be honest, the simple date is at least part of the reason for publishing this now. But I’ll be honest, it’s not the whole reason.

      9. There is a presidential election in fifteen months, the incumbent president is a Republican, the Democrats lost the last presidential election because African-American voters did not turn out in the numbers they did in 2008 and 2012,

        Well, aren’t you the brainwashed one.

        Nearly 10 million voted against Trump, and his “record” Electoral College margin was ….. 39,000 voters … in three states combined,
        He got a record 18% “anti” votes, They voted against Hillary, not for him.

        So, you’re just another brainwashed victim of your own ignorance. Do you know that even Fox News has abandoned his sinking ship — pointing to his FAILED tax cuts, the worst debt EVER for a President — already added more new dent than Obama did after 8 years? His FAILED trade war. And 59% of Americans say he is “tearing America apart.”

        Left – Right = Zero. So the Dems will likely also screw up again, so we’ll likely see the mot distrusted candidates EVER again, in 2020. And it’s doubtful Trump will even be on the ballot. His disapproval is now over 60% in the latest AP pol, and nearly 60% already say they will not vote for him, over 50% “definitely” won’t. His tiny ego could not take such a humiliating defeat.

        The Dems don’t have all the precious snowflakes! You’re a Republican, right? Both parties are obsolete and dying.

    3. Perhaps better to say that it could be good and interesting if it were an honest look at history and not blatantly pushing a particular agenda and narrative.

      1. Yup.

        We don’t have to defend the “honorable” aim of the project when it’s clearly a bad-faith argument to support their propoganda.

        1. And the Smithsonian, that bastion of conservative white oppression, even disagrees with the idea of tracing slavery roots to 1619.
          https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/misguided-focus-1619-beginning-slavery-us-damages-our-understanding-american-history-180964873/
          But then again, if we blamed the Portuguese and Spanish someone might remember that the Central and South America were once part of those empires.

      2. Perhaps if a 12-year-old read and explained it to you?

    4. Today’s Left: We’re super-patriotic…we just hate literally EVERYTHING about the USA except, well, us.

      1. Don’t let such raging hatred hurt you. Neither party gives a fuck about America, and their loyal puppets are now a shrinking minority of Americans, combined, each suffering he delusion that all of America is awaiting their message

        While Trump is the biggests failure EVER on deficits, WORSE economic growth than Obama, with a FAILED trade war …. all per .. Fox News.

        You folks are all alone, twisting in the wind. Well, the crazies at InfowarS and Breitbart. You stay hiding under your bed, where it’s safer for ya.

    1. Agree. This article iss excellent and exemplifies why I read Reason content. Good job, Timothy Sandefur.

        1. Losers be WHINY. (lol)

  4. The idea that American prosperity is based on slavery is a complete lie. To believe such a lie you have to believe that the Northern States banned slavery both in the North and the Northwest Territories despite it being against their own economic interests.

    You also have to believe that slavery created all of this prosperity that somehow only went to the North. The North was much wealthier and had a much more advanced economy than the slave holding south at the time of the civil war.

    1. The argument seems to be that because plantation managers were able to do accounting and capitalistic enterprises use accounting, capitalism is the child of slavery and therefore bad.

      It is reaching for a conclusion.

      1. The other argument is that since the insurance industry started partially by offering insurance to slave trading vessels, slavery is the base of all capitalism. The fact that the first insurance company was a fire insurance company an that maritime insurance covered a lot of things beyond slave trading vessels and there is nothing about the business model of insurance that requires slavery seems not to matter.

        Leftists are so ignorant of history, it is impossible to even talk to them. They literally don’t know a single thing that isn’t a lie. So, there is no common assumptions or knowledge to start with.

        1. Remember how we used to make fun of the “everything is racist” guy? Was it Eddie Murphy who had the bit about pool being racist because it has a white ball knocking all the colored balls around? And he liked bowling, because the black ball gets to knock all the white pins down…

          That attitude has become the heart of everything with “studies” in the title. Just completely make stuff up to match your preferred narrative and then assert it as fact. Write that up and you’ve got yourself a publication! It doesn’t matter how tenuous the connection, how twisted the logic, how implausible the story… as long as it fits the narrative.

        2. 3 thousand ducats, and Antonio shall become bound.

          Root of slavery.

      2. The rodent doesn’t realize that when the Communist Manifesto was written, slaveholding mercantilism was the norm in These New States (where North suddenly meant Metropole) and the mystical monarchies and pediculous papacies of rotting Europe. Capitalist–an epithet equivalent to Howells’ Accumulation–is the term coined by the enemies of freedom. Those who persist in parroting the insult where laissez-faire or libertarian would be the accurate term are simply giving aid and comfort to looters–like the racial collectivist morons who call Fabian Socialists “liberals.”

        1. The rodent doesn’t realize that when the Communist Manifesto was written, slaveholding mercantilism was the norm in These New States (where North suddenly meant Metropole) and the mystical monarchies and pediculous papacies of rotting Europe.

          The communist manifesto was written in 1848. The only European or new world nations still practicing slavery in 1848 were the U.S. Cuba and Brazil.

          I don’t know what universe you live in Hank, but it isn’t ours and I thank God I don’t have to go there.

          1. I’m starting to think Hank Phillips is what you get when you deprive Agile Cyborg of drugs, and force-feed him a steady diet of alternative history fiction.

            1. And his prevailing obsession is Comstock laws.

            2. Agile Cyborg! Haven’t heard than name in ages.
              [pours beer down on the ground]

          2. John, what did you think “These New States” meant?

          3. “The only European or new world nations still practicing slavery in 1848 were the U.S. Cuba and Brazil.” And Russia. The Russians called them “serfs”, but apparently could sell them separately from the land, and that sounds like a slave market to me.

        2. I have been reading and hearing synopses of the relevant 1619 essays published used that term. Personally, I do prefer “free market” economics.

      3. The hundreds of thousands of Union dead and wounded weren’t actually fighting to end slavery, they were fighting to preserve the white supremacist privileges of industrial corporatism and capitalism. Or something. It’s child’s play to think up some plausible-sounding reason for why literally everything is an outgrowth of racism. And of course denying that literally everything is an outgrowth of racism is itself racist.

        1. They weren’t fighting to end slavery.

          1. Some were, some weren’t. Some said one thing, believed another. Some believed in both, or neither, or other ideas, and all combinations. Some were conscripts trying to stay alive.

          2. Most weren’t. But they nevertheless marched to a song which proclaimed that they were:

            As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free;
            While God is marching on.

            That’s the confusing part.

            1. Uhhh, the north was attacked, Fort Sumter. You people are scary.

          3. They were fighting because the STUPID DUMBFUCK SOUTH STARTED THE WAR …. by firing on Fort Sumter …. while the Union was ignoring their new Confederacy. Basically, the Confederacy was as stupid as today’s racists — the bellowing Trumptards.

        2. John Brown’s body is white supremacy!
          John Brown’s body is industrial corporatism!
          John Brown’s body is heartless capitalism!
          His truth is marching on!

      4. Funny how this argument is the complete opposite of what Marxists were arguing when I was in college in the 1970s. They claimed that while the North was capitalist, the South was pre-capitalist feudalistic society with the planters acting as landed aristocracy and the slaves functioning as serfs tied to the land. The Southerners certainly did not see themselves as capitalists. Indeed, as I recall, on the eve of the Civil War, at least one slave owner describes slavery as a form of socialism.

        1. Look up George Fitzhugh.
          Democrat arguments haven’t fundamentally changed, they’ve just adopted new terms

      5. I think the argument is from marx labor theory of value. Slavery is the most pure form of labor theft. This experience set the table and directly led to our current system of capitalist labor theft.

    2. Slavery was the very cause of Southern economic sluggishness.

      1. Yes it was. The North new this. The North didn’t reject slavery at least at first because it had any affinity or sympathy for the blacks. It rejected slavery because free men didn’t want to have to compete with slaves in the labor market and they saw how lousy slavery was for the overall economy.

        1. Turns out its way easier and more efficient to just pay people to work for 12 hours and let them take care of themselves than it is to own your labor and have to make sure they’re clothed, fed, hydrated, given a bed, given living quarters (regardless of how shabby & cramped), disciplined, keep them compliant and contained within a certain area.

          Well shit.

          1. I have heard the southern plantation economy described as a weird extension of the feudal economic model into the Americas, rather than being a antecedent of market economies.

            1. The southern slave economy was a regression from the market economy they brought with them from England. The problem was, how do you keep men working on your plantation when there is unclaimed farmland a few miles west? Higher pay would just reduce the time for the workers save up enough money to start their farm without hardship. Low pay would drive them to walk away and try to take up new land even with no savings. Indentured servants were legally obligated to stay, but since photography and fingerprinting hadn’t been invented, catching and prosecuting runaways was nearly impossible.

              African slaves were the solution – runaway Africans were easy to identify.

              In the 1780’s the hope was that as the frontier receded, retaining free wage labor would become easier and slavery would fade away, as it effectively already had in England. That expectation failed when the cotton gin made in-land cotton growing in the south practical and multiplied the need for labor.

          2. People work harder when they work for themselves than when they are enslaved and work to avoid the whip. What a concept

            It shouldn’t really surprise anyone that Progressives think slavery was the key to American prosperity since they want to make slaves out of everyone with the government as owner.

          3. Anyone who has been in the military and been assigned to KP or picking up cigarette butts knows how little enthusiasm they bring to the effort, and how easy it is to skate and do as little as possible. Only a damned fool would think slaves wouldn’t do the same.

        2. Adam Smith argued slavery was never an economic advantage except under very strict circumstances. This is why slavery was usually self limiting (something many of the founding fathers thought as well). It just so happened that malaria and yellow fever, especially the most virulent and deadly form of Malaria were common in the south and African Americans had more immunity to it then Europeans. Thus a labor shortage made slavery somewhat economical. Many of the founding fathers (even the slave owners) felt ending the importation of slaves would change the economics allowing slavery to die off. This may have happened except Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and American Slaves had a higher survival rate then slaves in the Caribbean,Central America and South America. Thus demand didn’t outstrip supply and prices remained moderate. These factors had nothing to do with racism. As it was, despite the benefits as you point out slavery and the plantation system stunted economic growth (slaves are I’ll suited, not being motivated for obvious reasons-nothing to do with race but lack of rights- for technical skills needed for industrialization. Slavery also hurt the lower income farmers in the south. Patrick Henry was making this argument as early as the 1760s.

      2. As the good book says, the past is never dead. It’s not even past.

    3. The other self-own is the assertion that American prosperity was entirely due to the labor of the nation’s black residents–except that there were hardly any freedmen in the North even after slavery was abolished there. In fact, there were less than 500K free black residents in the entire country, north, south, east, and west. The North alone had 22 million residents, and even assuming that 9/10 freedmen lived there, that’s still only 2.5 percent of the whole population.

      How did the North become so economically and industrially advanced with nothing more than white Englishmen, Germans, Scandinavians, and boundless shiploads of dirt-grubbing Irishmen and Scots, and hardly any black residents at all?

      Basically, this whole project is just a variation of Afrocentrism, which claims that sub-Saharan Africans built the pyramids, were responsible for all the good things about ancient Mediterranean culture (not the bad things, no sir!), and created the first advanced civilizations.

    4. If it’s based on slavery, why was the North industrial without it?

      Can it be more factors were at play? Say stuff like trade, innovation and risk taking?

      Slavery was in the south which was more agrarian.

      Never mind the slavery population was probably too small to drive an entire economy into industrialization. You would have to stretch the function of slavery into preposterous levels as John points out. Sort of how they loosened the definition of racism so that most people qualify as ‘white supremacist’ now.

      America wasn’t built on the backs of slavery.

    5. Yeah, that’s the odd part. The only reason slavery existed in the South as long as it did was the cotton gin. Take away that and slavery was UNBELIEVABLY economically detrimental (even with the gin, it wasn’t exactly a profitable endeavor).

      And we also spent a LOT of money ending it. Slavery didn’t effectively end due to an epiphany. The West stopped it as best as it could. Africa STILL has a slavery problem to this day. We couldn’t stop it everywhere, but damn did we make a solid shot at it.

      1. This is also why England ended slavery before the US. Once England didn’t have the US colonies as a market their slave trade died off. Slavery was one of England’s most profitable industries, to the degree that prior to the revolution the crown forbid emancipation in a lot of the southern colonies.

        1. So the *real* story is that the American Revolution helped end slavery in English colonies.

          The exact opposite of the story they’re trying to sell.

          1. Yes, who was the biggest beneficiary of the slave trade in the English Colonies? Oh the British Crown. Gee, why don’t Prince Charles and his lot pay the reparations?

            1. YOU BRAINWASHED CONSERVATARD …. ENGLAND BANNED SLAVERY LONG BEFORE WE DID … EVEN MEXICO BEAT US …. WHICH IS WHY TEXAS HAD TO LEAVE IT.

              They line up, to comfort themselves, by reciting lies programmed by their masters …. and fundamental ignorance … in a DEEP tribal caves …. just like libtards

              Left – Right = Zero
              Libertarians speaking Truth to Power for over 50 years

              1. I already addressed that shithead. Learn to read. It is a historical fact that the British crown was one of the largest investors in the slave trade right up to when the US gained it’s independence. England did ban slavery first, but mainly because they lost the largest market for slaves. In fact, if you study pre-Revolutionary history you’ll find out that it was illegal in many colonies to ban slavery or free slaves because the crown forbid the colonist from freeing their slaves. Learn to read dipshit. You accuse others of being brainwashed and then regurgitate historically inaccurate statements. Fuck off.

                1. soldiermedic 76. Don’t bother responding to anyone who uses capitals in a post. You’re not going to change any opinion they may have been frothing over when they pounded out their screed at the keyboard. It’s best to let them stew, and not give them a reason to stir the pot of their toxic bile.

                  1. Ir’s ridicule, dumbass.
                    HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU, ON THE END OF SLAVERY.
                    (sneer)

                2. WHAT ABOUT MEXICO ENDING SLAVERY EVEN SOONER???
                  (snort)

      2. We all KNOW why the wingers LIE about this story … correct?

        Left – Right = Zero
        Libertarians speaking truth to power for nearly 6 years.

        1. nearly 60 years

          1. Considering you just implied that the British Crown didn’t benefit greatly from slavery prior to the Revolution you may want to reconsider who you call liars.

            1. Think much???

              1. Obviously much more than you since I’ve busted you for multiple historical errors. Not that you’d ever admit it because you will just resort to hold facing and copy and pasting non-sequitors.

                1. PSYCHO CALLED OUT AS A LIAR ,… AGAIN … ON “IMPLIED”
                  The boldface is ridicule, goober … so everyone sees your latest fuckup. DUH

                2. TheFOURTHReich and TheLibertyTruthTeller are both Hihn’s sockpuppets, soldiermedic76.
                  Just ignore him, he’s insane.

          2. Oh and is it 50 years or 60. Your above post says 50 now your claiming 60. You can’t even keep your cut and paste tropes straight.

            1. “NEARLY 69 years”
              “OVER 50 years”

              Fucking liar.

              1. “NEARLY 60 years” is what I said.
                “OVER 50 years” is what I said.”

                “Truth to power” PRECEDES the libertarian movement, but led to its formation.

                GET A LIFE

                1. This is rich, telling me to get a life. The person posting under at least three different socks and clogging up the thread with the vast plurality of comments. Most of which are either historically inaccurate, non-sequitor nonsense or both.

                  1. *****YOU WERE PROVEN A LIAR … NOW A PSYCHO

                    Oh and is it 50 years or 60. Your above post says 50 now your claiming 60. You can’t even keep your cut and paste tropes straight.

                    “NEARLY 60 years” is what I said.
                    “OVER 50 years” is what I said.”

                    “Truth to power” PRECEDES the libertarian movement, but led to its formation.

                    GET A LIFE

                    Why keep stalking, while making an ass of yourself as a bully???

              2. You do realize what lying is don’t you? You keep using that word but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    6. Some of it was, especially in the South, and that is un-fucking-deniable. Why so many pseudo libertarians act like slavery was basically just a pimple that got popped I’ll never understand, white people enslaved people of another race, doesn’t that both you in the slightest? How about that whole freedom from from tyrants thing, whether local government, big government, or some piece-of-shit white dude trying to make you pick his cotton.

      1. Those aren’t libertarians.
        They’re ignorant conservatard blowhards

      2. “doesn’t that both you in the slightest”
        No.
        Everyone involved is dead, their kids are dead and their grandkids are dead. Their great-great-grandchildren (who never met them) may still be alive, but would be extremely fucking old.
        So how long should we fucking mope about it?

        Should we still be pissing and moaning about the sack of Troy, or the Mongol depredations?

        1. LAME)
          The founders had nothing to do with The sack of Troy amor Mongol depredations.

          So your answer is NO, slavery does not bother you at all –hence the LAME excuses exactly as shameless as Wise Old Fool said, and the blowhard conservatard described by LTT.

          And you’re even cool that the founders ENFORCED slavery in the Constitution, until after the Civil War. Say HI to Alex Jones, Trump, Steve Miller and Ron Paul.

  5. It’s fair to say that the political faction generally described as “progressive” has not really liked the Constitution.

    Woody Wilson wouldn’t have minded the racism stuff (he praised Lincoln in spite of, not because of, his freeing the slaves), but Wilson thought the Constitution was defective because it wasn’t an up-to-date document with a strong executive (maybe backed by a Parliament where the executive doubled as the majority-party leadership) without protection of icky private-property rights.

    Then Chuck Beard came forward with his theory about the Constitution simply being a device to protect the rich in their ill-gotten property and hamper populist movements trying to take (or at least regulate the heck out of) that property.

    Then they were able to get judges to their liking, who made the Constitution mean what they had previously complained it hadn’t meant – so one might think this would reconcile the progressives with the Constitution. Apparently not.

    And then there’s the whole definition of patriotism. Progs are patriotic – in favor of a vision of what the country *could* be if they had the chance to remake it. While the left-behind deplorables are patriotic in the dangerous sense of actually thinking there’s *already* some unique virtues to their country (without excluding the need for reform from time to time).

    Some deplorables even seem to think that we screwed up by departing too much from the Founding vision. The progs, like Calhoun but for different reasons, reject the founding vision in favor of their own.

    Borrowing a metaphor from Burke (who took it from Greek mythology), the progs want to chop up the country and put it in a magic kettle where it can be brought back to life and restored to something better. The deplorables only see the chopping-up process, they don’t see the sincere and beautiful vision of how the country will be better after it’s been chopped up and cooked to perfection.

    1. You get it. The lefties hate not only the country, but indeed our constitution, and the very idea of a representative democratic republic itself.

      The lefties’ dream is to remake America as a de facto one party totalitarian state like China or North Korea. They think that any dissent from any of their views is illegitimate and that anyone who disagrees with them should be a second class citizen with limited rights, at best.

      And by the way, this includes all the frauds here at Reason like Gillespie and Welchie Boy, who openly and proudly fantasizes about murdering those he disagrees with.

      1. China is the Globalist ideal.

        Thomas Friedman used to write articles splooging himself over the wonders that the West could have if only it had a sufficiently powerful central authority that didn’t have to worry about the objections of the peasant class.

        1. Fucking psycho liar.

      2. The righties hate freedom just as much, just the areas that they want to change up are different from the lefties, and you fucking know it.

    2. It’s fair to say that the political faction generally described as “progressive” has not really liked the Constitution.WILSON WAS THE LAST CENTURY …. YOU DEFLECT FROM TRUMPS LIES TO DEFEND NEO-NAZIS AND WHITE SUPEMACISTS NOW

      Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazis. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof

      The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
      “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
      Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
      Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

      Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry, on the left OR right.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Libertarians have KNOWN that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
      As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction.
      While authoritarians, Left and Right, are braying like jackasses, whining like pussies and chirping like dodo birds.

  6. The Constitution is a good try but since it doesn’t prohibit the government from initiating force it really doesn’t protect liberty. Hell the 13th amendment actually allows slavery. Yes slavery is constitutionally legal RIGHT NOW.

    1. To say forced labor by convicted inmates is “slavery” in the same sense as generational slavery of innocent people is a grievous insult to the actual victims of slavery. And yes, every government initiates force. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a government.

      The fact is someone is going to initiate force whether you like it or not. Until we create Utopia where everyone agrees and can settle all of their differences peacefully, force or the threat of it will be a part of human relations.

      1. By the time someone is convicted and sentenced to a period of involuntary servitude it is safe to say that force has already been applied.

      2. Well, Kamala Harris came really close to crossing that line in CA repeatedly.

      3. It says “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude” that clearly means you can be enslaved for committing crimes. The function of government is to defend liberty so no it doesn’t HAVE to initiate force.

        1. It says “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude” that clearly means you can be enslaved for committing crimes.

          How many times can you LIE about initiation of force?Punishing a convicted criminal is DEFENDING RIGHTS.
          Are you a Rothbard puppet?

    2. Righties be THIS “brilliant”

      Hell the 13th amendment actually allows slavery. Yes slavery is constitutionally legal RIGHT NOW.

      JOHN AGREES!!!!
      EVEN CRAZIER ….

      The Constitution is a good try but since it doesn’t prohibit the government from initiating force

      b>OMG! JOHN AGREES AGAIN!! (swoon)

      Pay attention:
      Constitutions DELEGATE powers. It also does not prohibit government from PISSING ON YOUR HEAD!!! But does not DELEGATE that power.

      Ours is a nation of delegated powers …. as you’ll learn in high school If you TRY hard enough!

      Libertarians speaking Truth to Power for nearly 60 years.
      Conservatards NEVER understood liberty. Just like progtards
      Left – Right = Zero

      1. Sorry I don’t understand gibberish.

        1. YOU FUCKED UP
          CONSTITUTIONS DELEGATE POWERS …. WHICH YOU CALL “GIBBERISH” … THUS EVEN STUPIDER THAN HE SAID.

          ALSO KNOWN AS “ENUMERATED” (smirk)

          1. CAN YOU HEAR IT NOW?

  7. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn’t slavery but the effort to abolish it.

    Sounds like something an apologist for slavery would say. Yet more proof that slavery permeates every molecule of America’s structure – apologists for slavery feel compelled to deny that they’re apologists for slavery.

    1. TWO wingers say that ABOLISHING slavery is SUPPORTING IT!!

      In fact, it would be more accurate to say that what makes America unique isn’t slavery but the effort to abolish it.

      Jerryskids
      Sounds like something an apologist for slavery would say. Yet more proof that slavery permeates every molecule of America’s structure – apologists for slavery feel compelled to deny that they’re apologists for slavery

      PEES PANTS LAUGHING. THEN …

      buybuydandavis
      +1

      WHY?
      Because THEY would defend LIBERTY by … ABOLISHING IT!

      Libertarians speaking truth to power for nearly 60 years.
      Left – Right = Zero

  8. Yet when it came time to help France and England win “over there” and repay U.S. war loans out of German reparations, the Suprema Corte “could not see” anything involuntary in press-gang coercion into foreign trenches under threat of chain-gang imprisonment. Rooseveltian trust-busting has made production a whimsical felony. Bryanistic populism brought the Communist manifesto into the 16th Amendment as a force law in the service of pseudoscience and superstition, yet the assertion that there is something deeply wrong with The Constitution is baffled by the simplest question: “Compared to whose?”

    1. The United States is the most deeply-flawed country in the world, except for all the others.

      1. Indeed. I love how we’re to blame for the African slave trade that pre-dated us ….by centuries, mind you…and continues to this day.

        1. The North American mainland took 5% of the trans Atlantic slave trade from Sub Saharan Africa.

          1. The North American mainland took 5% of the trans Atlantic slave trade from Sub Saharan Africa.

            JUSTIFIES U.S. slavery with …. self-evident bullshit.

            buybuysanity DEFENDS slavery HERE too
            https://reason.com/2019/08/21/the-founders-were-flawed-the-nation-is-imperfect-the-constitution-is-still-a-glorious-liberty-document/#comment-7904947

            When conservatards OPENLY defend slavery …. while WHINING about libruls ,,, and LYING about the story here … they have been TRUMPFECTED. And there is NO cure.

        2. CRAZY #1

          the African slave trade that pre-dated us ….by centuries, mind you…

          CRAZY #2

          and continues to this day.

          Crazy #3

          https://reason.com/2019/08/21/the-founders-were-flawed-the-nation-is-imperfect-the-constitution-is-still-a-glorious-liberty-document/#comment-7905537

          Bigots lie about slavery. Coincidence?

  9. “”American slavery predated the American Revolution by a century and a half. “”

    Funny how in all the slavery talk, England gets a pass.

    1. England got incredibly wealthy from the sugar trade. The worst aspects of slavery were the sugar plantations in the Caribbean. Hundreds of thousands of people were enslaved and brought to the Caribbean to be worked to death in the sugar plantations. It was a death sentence to be sent there. The myth is that blacks were brought in because they could take the climate. No. Blacks were no more immune to tropical diseases than anyone else. Black slaves were just expendable and could be replaced when they died where local Indians had already died out.

      1. Weren’t most of the Caribbean sugar plantations French?

        1. Some where but many were British. The British owned Barbados and Antique and a ton of others.

          1. Captain Jack rum, not Capitaine Jacques ha

        2. Part of the reason for French participation in the American Revolution was an excuse to seize some of British sugar islands.

      2. False. Blacks were more immune to malaria than whites.

        1. At least the deadliest strains, or more accurately, Europeans were more susceptible to it. Also, most first generation African slaves had had yellow fever as a child, therefore they had acquired immunity to it as well.

    2. Native American slavery predated it by thousands of years.

      1. So did Jewish,

    3. Funny how in all the slavery talk, England gets a pass.

      1) When discussing AMERICAN slavery, goober.
      2) Funny how you FAIL to know England ended slavery LONG before we did (1833) … MEXICO EVEN SOONER! (1829)

      COUNT THEM. How many Trumptards EXCUSE and/or JUSTIFY slavery in America on this page … with BLATANT IGNORANCE?
      WHO has brainwashed so many? And so easily?

      “Well, hell cornpone, it waren’t DAT bad.”

      And why do they LIE about the story here?

  10. Good article, Reason. I’m glad you all pushed back with some counter-facts that show the other side to this story. I’m about 1/3 through 1619 and it brings up some interesting points, but I also knew they were leaving a lot of other valid angles out since the piece is specifically intended to show America through a lens of racism.

    1. I agree. More stuff like this from Reason and less Dalmia TDS screeds.

      1. Yes please!

        Reason has been on a tear for the last two weeks. Lots of good articles about new topics. A few articles about what is happening with DNC candidates and their proposals. And only a couple of articles about Crazy Trump Tweets. Much better balance.

        1. ***Breaking News … White House FORCED to admit a recession is likely … adding ANOTHER failure to … the worst deficts EVER … slower economy tha OBAMA (slowest since BUSH!) … but says a recession would be “short and mild” … when EVERY prior promise has FAILED … and we sink deeper into debt … Which Trump campaigned on PAYING OFF ENTIRELY in 8 years!!!

          Deficit to top $1 trillion per year by 2020, CBO says

          America’s deficit is rising sharply and will surpass $1 trillion per year by 2020, a gap that has grown since Congress cut taxes and increased spending,

          “The federal budget deficit grows substantially over the next several years,… Federal debt is projected to be on a steadily rising trajectory throughout the decade.”

          During debate on the bill, Republican leaders predicted that their proposal would spark massive economic growth that would limit — or even eliminate — additions to the deficit. But the CBO projected Monday that the bill would boost economic growth 0.7 percent over a decade — not enough to keep it from adding to the deficit.

          WHY DO CONSERVATARDS SUPPORT TRUMP’S NEW NEW DEAL …DENYING THE BIGGEST CLUSTERFUCK SINCE FDR???

          FOX ABANDONS SINKING SHIP

          FOX NEWS: Trump in big trouble for 2020. Political and economic warning signs there for all to see

          The strong economy Trump touts is anything but and the signs are obvious.

          First, Trump cut taxes and said it would pay for itself. Instead, it has exploded the deficit.

          President Barack Obama inherited a trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2009, but it was down to $600 billion by the time he left office.

          In just two years, thanks to tax cuts, Trump has taken the deficit back to a trillion dollars.

          And on “Fox News Sunday,” White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow admitted that the administration is looking at more tax cuts.

          INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM

          Next, Trump said China would bear the costs of his trade war with them. Really? Trump’s suspension of additional tariffs is an admission that they have been hurting American consumers despite his claims to the contrary.

          In the Fox News Poll, 46 percent said tariffs were hurting the economy.

          The fact is Trump’s best economic growth is 3.5 percent in two quarters out of the 10 quarters he’s been in office,
          ** 3.5 percent, is Obama’s seventh best quarter,
          ** George W. Bush’s eighth best,
          ** and Bill Clinton’s 17th best.
          Yet, Trump claims his economy is the best ever. Far from it.

          **** If that wasn’t bad enough, a staggering 59 percent of voters think Trump is tearing the country apart.

          Fox News leaves Trumpsters all alone, twisting in the wind …

          Left – Right = Zero

    2. When I saw Timothy Sandefur as the writer, my first thought was “What’s he doing in this dump?”

      1. You’re here.

  11. Lincoln provided the most thorough refutation. There was only one piece of evidence, he observed, ever offered to support the thesis that the Declaration’s authors didn’t mean “all men” when they wrote it: that was the fact that they did not free the slaves on July 4, 1776.

    This is why still have faith in the noble experiment that is the US government. Sure, they walk all over your rights every day, but, if you give then a century or two, they come around and see the light.

  12. The question I have about the 1619 Project is its relationship to the Democratic primary field’s denunciation of the United States as a thoroughly racist country. Did Beto O’Rourke get a tip that the Times was going to be spear-heading an effort to re-write American history before he started getting so strident before the news of the 1619 Project broke? Or is the Times so slow on the uptake that even a vacuous shit-for-brains gasbag like O’Rourke scooped them on the new talking points memo? If the reporting is to be believed, the editor of the Times actually admitted the Times had been caught flat-footed on the new racism narrative – which is really a sad and pathetic admission the Times is no longer a trend-setter and a thought leader but merely an old and busted conformist follower of fashion.

    1. Here is your answer Jerry from the mouth of the executive editor himself.

      The day Bob Mueller walked off that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet continued. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy s–t, Bob Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain way for two years. Right?”

      “I think that we’ve got to change,” he told the town hall. Baquet says the Times’ new focus is to “write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.”

      While you’re letting that sink in, here’s more.

      “I mean, the vision for coverage for the next two years is what I talked about earlier: How do we cover a guy who makes these kinds of remarks?” he said. “How do we cover the world’s reaction to him? How do we do that while continuing to cover his policies? How do we cover America, that’s become so divided by Donald Trump?”

      And just a bit more.

      “How do we write about race in a thoughtful way, something we haven’t done in a large way in a long time? That, to me, is the vision for coverage. You all are going to have to help us shape that vision. But I think that’s what we’re going to have to do for the rest of the next two years.”

      http://spectator.org/dean-baquet-kills-the-new-york-times/

      So yes, I imagine Beto and the rest of them got the talking points. It is all coordinated political bullshit.

      1. “How do we write about race in a thoughtful way,”

        Just spit balling here but….tell the truth and don’t call everyone a racist?

        And.

        The thing is the ‘fix’ is so obvious they don’t even bother to hide it or are too stupid and incompetent to hide it or just plain think people won’t notice – or all of the above.

        Like Big Tech do collude to purge, legacy media (who still can’t come out and admit they lean Democrat) do work hand in hand with the DNC. Think Donna Brazile and Cindy Crowley.

        At the very least, one should smell something is fishy.

        1. Better Americans don’t call everyone a bigot.

          Mostly just the bigots.

          Who don’t like to be called racists anymore, mostly consequent to having their lame, bigoted, right-wing asses stomped by their betters in the culture war for more than a half-century.

          1. You’re a loser.

            1. Because he called out your bigotry and moral hypocrisy … so you are canny enough to prove him right..

              booga-booga

              1. He called me out on nothing. He just repeats the same old tiresome gibberish.

                You forgot left – right = zero Hihn.

                1. Monacled Bigot, Conspiracy Freak, Bully, Psycho, Liar ….

                  Because he called out your bigotry and moral hypocrisy … so you are canny enough to prove him right..

                  He called me out on nothing. He just repeats the same old tiresome gibberish.

                  BEND OVER — BULLSHIT JAMMED UP YOUR ASS … AND TWISTED

                  The thing is the ‘fix’ is so obvious they don’t even bother to hide it or are too stupid and incompetent to hide it or just plain think people won’t notice – or all of the above.

                  Like Big Tech do collude to purge, legacy media (who still can’t come out and admit they lean Democrat) do work hand in hand with the DNC. Think Donna Brazile and Cindy Crowley.

                  Better Americans don’t call everyone a bigot.

                  Mostly just the bigots.

                  Who don’t like to be called racists anymore, mostly consequent to having their lame, bigoted, right-wing asses stomped by their betters in the culture war for more than a half-century

                  You’re a loser..

                  Left – Right = Zero ….PROVEN (SNEER)

          2. The man who dreams of being a boot stomping a human face – forever.

            1. Like you just did, (smirk)

      2. Wow. That’s pretty damning.

        Why isn’t that a top line story, everywhere?

        The Editor of the NYT admits that their goal is to get Trump out of office. And that their coverage of race is a part of that goal?

        Wow.

        If that isn’t faked or heavily doctored, there should be a national outrage.

        And why would Trump, or any Republican allow access to the NYT? When they have stated that their goal is not just to be ideologically opposed, but to actually work toward removing you from office (not for cause, but by any means necessary), why should anyone treat them seriously?

        That goes way beyond any accusations of bias. So far beyond, in fact, that I have to believe there’s more to it.

      3. If John had read the Slate article … linked from his fascist web site .. he’d have seen the Spectator lied … like his other bullshit link today.

        “None are so easily brainwashed as those who are eager to be.”
        – HL Mencken

        1. If Dumbfuck Hihnsano had read the Slate article…oh, never mind, we know Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t read past the first page of anything he cites.

  13. good article. I ask what is the goal of teh type of story telling in 1619. is it to bring people together or just further divide races or is it just an excuse to not work and make a case for reparations which will make the tax payer the new slave to those receiving reparations. Some times you just have to move on people

  14. Let’s repeal the 13th amendment and give the NYT something to really cry about.

    1. I like the way you think!

    2. Better yet, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments. 🙂

      They’The Progtards will go wild….

      1. Like you’ve just done? 🙂

  15. The founders were only flawed in the sense that all human beings are flawed, any other meaning requires an arrogation of superior morality. In their time they were some of the finest people to have lived. Two centuries from now we should be so lucky to be viewed as the recipients of their lasting heritage.

    1. Even if they were white supremisist it wouldn’t detract from the one document that claims all are equal and provides the foundation work for the most opportune nation in the world to date.

      1. As I understand it, the main focus of concern was to create a nation. The issue of slavery was too complex an issue big enough to derail if not prevent the creation of a nation. They made a pragmatic call to not deal with it securing the birth of the nation first and trusting Americans would solve the issue of slavery at some point.

        And they did.

        Not enough credit is given to the fact blood was spilled and a nation shattered over the issue. It’s convenient to overlook this and just focus on it existing ergo bad.

        Even there they trip. Slavery is NOT unique to the American experience as people here already know as the tyranny of slavery has been a rather common rule in human history.

        Today it comes in the form of voting Democrat who basically advocate slavery by other means.

        1. Today it comes in the form of voting Democrat who basically advocate slavery by other means.Alt-right LIAR is back!

          Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazies. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof

          The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
          “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
          Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
          Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

          Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry, on the left OR right.

          Left – Right = Zero
          Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
          As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction.
          While authoritarians, Left and Right, are braying like jackasses, whining like pussies and chirping like dodo birds.

  16. The founders were white supremacist elitists who owned slaves.

    Take their documents with a grain of salt. If you feel like worshiping them, realize that no document, however wise, is actually sacred.

    1. Nothing says ‘Tony’ quite like arrogation of superior morality.

      You do understand that you will never pass the future judgement either, don’t you?

      1. You do understand that you will never pass the future judgement either, don’t you?

        Tony repeatedly fails to meet his own judgement, past and present, on a daily basis. Almost as a matter of principle.

        1. And like all progs never, ever, thinks his vision one realized will bite his own ass.

        2. “… Which is a kind of integrity, if you look on every exit being an entrance somewhere else.”

          T. Stoppard

      2. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds annoyingly like Jesus shit.

        Where did I tell a falsehood or give bad advice in my post?

        1. Hmmm. Nothing in there about religion but don’t let that stop your religious intolerance and bigotry. He was speaking about how future generations will judge us.

          1. There’s no possible way you can know how future generations will judge you. I’m guessing not kindly since you don’t believe in science and the planetary ecosystem is dying as a result, but then again, maybe nobody will be here to judge you at all!

            1. I don’t believe in science? I’m a fucking science professor dipshit. Show once were something I stated is not supported by science.
              And the point about the future not knowing how it will judge you was exactly his fucking point Poindexter!

            2. If you’re referring to climate change I accept the science moron. Never said anything to the opposite. But keep arguing straw man.

              1. So stop picking on me for believing in a slightly larger public sector than you, and go harass the majority of posters here who deny literally vital scientific facts.

                1. No, not slightly larger, vastly larger with far less civil liberties. And disagreeing with you is picking on you?

                  1. with far less civil liberties

                    So you don’t know what civil liberties are either? Do you also think Trump is not failing at …. everything?

                    1. You seem to be the one obsessed with Trump since I never mentioned him. But I know anything more complicated then “I’m the only true Scotsman I mean Libertarian on here” is to hard for you to grasp. And from your history, I would state, confidently that I have a far greater grasp of civil liberties then your fetid, peurile grasp of civil liberties. So why don’t you cut and paste, bold everything, post another half dozen crazy posts under multiple socks and resort to inane tropes. And do it somewhere else. Because most people ignore like 90+% of what you regurgitate. I occasionally read your shorter diatribes to see if you have attained anything resembling self awareness, but it hasn’t happened yet.

                    2. You seem to be the one obsessed with Trump since I never mentioned him.

                      ANSWER THE QUESTION

                  2. Slightly larger with far more civil liberties.

                    Unlike conservative/libertarians, I don’t believe that the Defense Department to the exclusion of all other elements of government is paid for with free money.

                    1. Civil liberties like taking away guns, limits on free speech by labeling it hate speech or through campaign finance laws, forcing people to perform services that violate their religion, etc? Oh yeah you are all for more civil liberties.
                      As for the defense department again nice straw man there. I have often stated that the problem with DoD spending cuts isn’t the cuts it’s what they cut. There is so much waste and inefficencies that can be cut. Instead the cut troops, training, supplies and updating equipment. They don’t cut the stupid shit that has little to no benefit to our defense but do cut shit that actually puts our troops lives at risk. So keep arguing against your caricatures, because so far they are the only ones that you have been able to score a point against.

                    2. More civil liberties like guaranteed basic healthcare and, in an ideal world (one in which the US wanted to be competitive), guaranteed tertiary education. Fuck gun rights. Not having a gun is not a social problem, but having one is! To the tune of tens of thousands of needlessly dead people.

                      I’m pretty good on free speech, but don’t believe that giving money to politicians is the same thing as speech, however much the obvious interests might want to insist that it is.

                    3. Health care is already a right … for the indigent …. and Medicaid SCREWS them BADLY. Before Medicaid, indigent care was provided by private charities and hospitals, paid for willingly by Americans. 100% treatment

                      Medicaid was sold with BernieBullshit, says health care should be a right, not depending on charity.

                      Pay attention. Medicaid depends on POLITICIANS. If they face tough budgets, you bet your life they will NEVER cut your benefits and ALWAYS raise your taxes. GET REAL.

                      Real means that Medicaid pays 25-30% less than Medicare leaving NO DOCTORS in many inner-cities. So the highest
                      percentage of uninsured is …. Medicaid eligibles. THEY are the most likely to DIE uninsured. This was reported by The Washington Post — NOT Fox — as the FRAUDULENT Obamacare Medicaid expansion was moving through Congress.


                      1 in 4 Uninsured Are Eligible for Aid But Aren’t Enrolled

                      One in four Americans — about 12 million people — who don’t have health coverage are eligible for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) but aren’t enrolled, a new report shows. (PRE-Obamacare expansion

                      No doctors.

                      Obamacare added tens of millions of more eligibles, but NO NEW DOCTORS. Instead … fraud …. people are now enrolled, automatically, if they are uninsured and go to an ER. Does NOT mean they have a doctor Or treatment.

                      Not just here., Google the words in italic. Canada’s medicare was ruled “an unconstitutional threat to human life, Chaoulli v Quebec. … citing all the patients DYING on waiting lists of a year or more. Understaffing.

                      England’s Keogh Report found that hundreds of people had been rolled into empty hospital rooms, abandoned, in a dozen hospitals, and found dead, many in their own excrement. Understaffing.

                      Your choice, Tony. Who do you support, America’s poor, or the political class, in both parties, that allows so many to die … uninsured … for whom healthcare is already a right?

                      Check my sources

            3. Oh, common, numptie. Throwing around such mind-numbing eco-blather is only an indication of a propensity for self-reverential posturing. I’m a physical scientist, who has worked in the “planetary ecosystem” for over forty years and know when I see such overblown tripe that the person spewing it is no scientist. Activist yes, scientist, no.

              1. There are far more scientifically illiterate people here than I. Pick on them.

                By physical scientist do you mean real scientist or do you mean engineer?

    2. That’s probably why they put in methods to alter the document.

      See? Even elitist white supremacist slave owners were smarter than you Esmeralda.

      1. But did they have gigantic clocks?

    3. Smartest rube in all of Bumblefuck Oklahoma speaks!

    4. Leave it to Tony to accept the ad hominen aspect of all this.
      Even then, that they held slaves (but it’s clear in their writings they abhorred it) does NOT detract from the universality of its themes that continue to inspire people around the world.

      See Hong Kong.

      Progressives truly are sad, miserable, illiberal illiterates.

      Note by illiterate I don’t mean you know how to read. It entails more than that.

      1. Also, Jefferson and Washington wished to free their slaves but VA state law prevented it. They had no option but to own them. They had to wait until their deaths to abide by the law of their home.

        And even if they COULD free them…what then? A society that would have had no problem taking the slaves and claiming they escaped, even if freed, wasn’t a good place for them.

      2. It’s an ad hominem to say the founders were slaveowners?

        Hitler killed the Jews. Should we also ignore that and look at the merits of his infrastructure policy?

        You don’t have to worship dead men. Like, you just can choose not to do that.

        1. YOU said: “The founders were white supremacist elitists who owned slaves.”

          The author of the article just explained why it’s a fallacy. We just explained the FF were clearly conflicted and restricted in what they thought and could do.

          It’s an ad hominen. And it’s particularly odious since they’re not here to defend themselves.

          But easy just to lazily scream and call anyone a damn racist without proof. How does one defend against a negative assertion?

          Again. Illiterate.

          If progs could do it, they’d brand Jesus a racist or white supremacist.

          1. Yes, they were forced to own people. How horrible for them, what with being forced to have free chattel labor. Truly, the founding fathers were the real victims in all this.

            1. Why try?

              No one is saying they’re victims Tony.

              It’s rebuttal to the unsubstantiated ad hominem that they were ‘white supremacists’.

              You can’t just say ‘nyeh nyeh because I said so’. Produce the actual proof.

              No. That they owned slaves doesn’t make them so.

              1. Actually it kind of does in the most extreme way.

                But I’m not a person who judges past humans based on present standards. We’d have nobody to look up to.

                On the other hand, they did own slaves long past the time it was OK in most of the civilized world, and the South started a war to keep their slaves.

                And we’re still dealing with the repercussions today, as much as you may want to stick your fingers in your ear and go lalalala.

                1. That’s a more acceptable stance.

              2. They may have been against slavery, but most of them were white supremacists. Or, at least they believed whites were superior to other races and said so in writing.

                1. But they still saw free Africans as deserving all the same rights as whites. So hardly in the same category as neo-nazis or the Klan.

                  1. Fugitive slave clause, exposing you as a racist defending racism.
                    Constitution?

                2. Yes, they did think this. But I agree with soldiermedic that not sure if it rises to the the idea of ‘white supremacist’ as we define it today – ie neo-Nazi, KKK.

                  White Man’s Burden was a thing. True.

        2. If Hitler had a good infrastructure policy that would work here and now, then we should look at it. No need to ignore the awful things he did to do so.

          And yes, it is exactly the ad hominem fallacy to say that the fact that the founders were slave owners means that the founding documents were white supremacist or pro-slavery. Find evidence in the documents if that’s what you want to prove. There is no contradiction in saying that the founders were flawed people and that the Constitution is an effective document for promoting liberty and human rights.

          1. You mean the parts that talk about slaves and how, while they have no rights whatsoever (being slaves), they get to count as 3/5ths of a person when convenient for white politicians in slave states?

            The free speech and 5th amendment stuff is good though. Lots of good stuff in there. Not denying that. But it should be entirely scrapped and redone in light of it being the 21st century and it’s failing. Nobody’s fault. The oldest extant democratic constitution is bound to have problems.

            1. It was inconvenient for slave states to count slaves as less than whole persons since it reduced their power in Congress.

            2. Yes, it was the slave states that were virtuous seeing as how they wanted to count all of their slaves as people and the non-slave states were the evil ones for not wanting to count any of them as people.

              1. Counted for representation in Congress, not counted for any basic human rights.

                1. Unless they were free.

                  1. By definition, it would seem.

                    1. It was left to the individual states prior to the 15A. Many states, especially in the north, granted full citizenship and rights to freed blacks.

                    2. Diversion

                    3. Hihn, I mean nola liberty, I mean fourth Reich… Have you said anything accurate or on topic yet? Your entire screed is nothing but sophistry (poor at that) and diversions.

            3. Where does it say that they had less rights? Especially free blacks?

              1. “Fewer,” teach. And the issue is slaves, so another cowardly diversion.

                1. Diversion? Do you even know what that means? He stated “any human rights”. So I was correct and you are the one using diversions by stating “fewer”. Also, the Constitution doesn’t mention if or if not slaves have rights so once again a diversion on your part. This is fairly typical behavior of an incompetent narcacist like yourself, accuse others of your own shortcomings.

                  1. Diversion? Do you even know what that means? He stated “any human rights”.

                    ANOTHER diversion.
                    Means changing the subject, as in “to divert.”

                    So I was correct

                    emphasis added.

                    ME: “And the issue is slaves

                    Your diversion: Especially free blacks

                    And

                    you are the one using diversions by stating “fewer”.

                    That’s a grammar screw up. You said less rights, which should be fewer rights.
                    (I’d ignore that one, if you had not been such a snarky asshole, tripping over your own feet … three times …. while screeching insults.)

                    So it’s you who does not know what diversion means. And you’re stilldoing it.!

                    This is fairly typical behavior of an incompetent narcacist like yourself, accuse others of your own shortcomings. I’ve already exposed two of your fuckups. Here’s a third.

                    Constitution doesn’t mention if or if not slaves have rights so once again a diversion on your part.

                    ANOTHER diversion!
                    a) THE ISSUE IS SLAVES
                    b) SEE THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.
                    c) LAME

                    Slaves were then a STATE matter. Ummm, there were free states, and slave states!! A slave could not escape a slave state, to a free state, without being a fugitive … which means the federal government ENFORCED slavery … which means FEWER rights!

                    Every time you people throw a self-righteous hissy fit … it is to cover up one or more blatant screw ups Plus, why do so many of you keep making lame excuses and justifications for slavery?

                    accuse others of your own shortcomings.

                    Apparently, you cannot help yourself, 🙁

                    (Boldface in self-defence of yet more aggression, by a self-righteous and whiny pussy)

                    1. Repeat to clarify

                      This is fairly typical behavior of an incompetent narcacist like yourself, accuse others of your own shortcomings.

                      Irony!
                      I’ve already exposed two of your fuckups. Here’s a third.

          2. Find evidence in the documents

            Read Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia where he explains how whites are superior to all other races and blacks are inferior to all other races. Read Ben Franklin’s Letter to Peter Collinson where he expresses how the Anglo Saxons are the best race, superior to all others including those swarthy Italians and Greeks.

            1. That was hardly a unique view of whites, that there race were superior to others. The Chinese and Japanese had similar thoughts at the time, as did many Indian tribes. Now why not quote Jefferson who felt even if they were not equals they deserved equal rights.

      3. Progressives truly are sad, miserable, illiberal illiterates.

        But you’re the illiterate bigot.

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano projects like a movie theater again.

    5. I do not think John or Sam Adams, to name two, would appreciate that remark.

      1. That too. The founders disagreed about everything. Many did not own slaves and found slavery absolutely abhorent.

    6. The documents are documents. What do the authors’ activities and attitudes have to do with anything? Is what is written in the documents valid and useful or not?

    7. There were at least white nationalists.

      But they did set the trend for Europeans that they weren’t rightfully the farm animals on the King’s farm. That was kind of a big deal.

      As was Washington not simply declaring himself king when he had the chance, but turning in his commission as Commander in Chief.

      The Vanity of the Now looks down contemptuously on the previous generations who lifted them out of the muck and mire of human history. It’s not how wonderful your world is that measures your worth. It’s how much *better* you made it.

  17. As the good book says, the past is never dead. It’s not even past.

  18. Jefferson is indeed the perfect archetypal American: a dreamer, a do-er, a screw-up, capable of transforming a modest fortune into a pittance, but always a hopeful man of the age of reason, trying.

    “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”.

    I’m glad he’s of one us!

    1. And he saved Tom Paine’s bacon.

  19. I heard about Schilchter’s books and read them a couple of years ago, for entertainment. Pretty well written and a good story line, as apocalyptic stuff goes.

    Now I am beginning to believe the son of a bitch is fucking prescient. I imagine a former United States divided up into various factions, that can engage in the purest form of virtue signaling by engaging in perpetual economic and other struggles with each other and occasionally going to war.

  20. If you want to blow Progtard minds with facts, simply tell them this: The best thing that ever happened to the black people as a race, and not the individual slaves themselves, was their own brothers and sisters sold them into slavery to US bound slave ships and they were brought here. Blacks in the US enjoy a higher standard of living than blacks anywhere else.

    The 1619 Progtard Project is ghoulish, and Orwellian. In their twisted and fucked up world; up is down, ignorance is knowledge, wrong is right. It is a deliberate, macabre caricature of American history. And if the Progtards had any sense of honor and decency, they would hang their collective heads in shame, for peddling this Howard Zinn trash to the populace. This assumes they are capable of even perceiving shame, let alone feeling it.

    The 1619 Progtards have no interest in discussing history. They wish to rewrite it into some racial opus. It will fall by the wayside, like all the other idiot movements simply because there is no enduring truth behind it. It is nothing but grievance caterwauling.

    1. It’s propaganda from propagandists.

      That is the one valid piece of information to be drawn from it.

      1. Perhaps, Thomas…it is merely propaganda. Personally, I view it as a direct attack on our values; meaning, the Judeo-Christian values our Republic was founded upon. That is what this represents.

        1. I don’t find anything ‘mere’ in propaganda, it is one of the most effective means of communication, and one of the most dangerous.

          It is indeed an attack.

      2. I’d argue it’s the same zealotry you see from people who quit smoking or drinking.

    2. So you’re saying America did black people a favor by enslaving generations of them?

      Is that what you’re saying?

      Just be clear with your English.

      1. I’m pretty sure it’s not what he’s saying. #tonylovescathynewman.

          1. That’s because you are rather simplistic in your thought processes. Everything is binary for you. See your above post were you wrongly assumed a poster was speaking about religion when they were speaking about how future generations will judge ours.

      2. England, Spain, Portugal, France and Holland did black people a service by enslaving them.

        Americans just had/have to deal with the aftermath.

      3. No, he’s saying that because Africans were enslaved in the US for years, the US now has a black population that has a higher standard of living than any other black population in the world. Which I think is actually true.
        Whether that equals “doing black people a favor” is debatable. There are all kinds of historical counterfactuals you could propose. And I’m not sure it even makes sense to talk about things that way. But the actual fact (uncomfortable as it may be to talk about) is that the descendants of slaves brought to North America are much better off in general than the current populations of sub-Saharan Africa. It doesn’t mean that the ends justify the means. It’s just an observation.

        1. In fairness, Africa’s blacks are not as advanced as they could be also thanks to the benevolent intervention of white people.

          1. I can’t find it now, but in the mid-1980s a WaPo reporter wrote an op-ed, STUNNING ar the time

            He was back, and had been a correspondent in many parts of Africa. He expressed regret for what his ancestors suffered, having been brought here as slaves.

            But for himself he was thankful for their sacrifice, which brought him a much richer life than he would have otherwise had. And he had spent many year working in African countries.

            (This was NOT the same as asshole Trump’s shithole countries.)

      4. Yes, that is what Atlas_Shrugged is saying. He is just another racist asshole.

        1. No, you are as binary and simplistic as Tony.

          1. I’m binary and simplistic on purpose, to entertain you.

            1. No you’re binary and simplistic because you lack critical reasoning skills and would rather vilify those who you disagree with rather than do the hard work of understanding nuances.

              1. But tell me more about how Trump is a great president. In a nuanced way.

                1. Did I ever say he was great? I have both complimented his actions and criticized them. I also didn’t vote for him. See, binary thinking on your part. Unable to grasp nuances. I also complimented Obama when I agree with him and Bush and Clinton. I also criticized all three as well. And I actually thought about voting for Gabbard until I read more of her domestic policies. It is called using critical thinking rather than partisanship.

  21. Iran, to this day, has never officially renounced or banned slavery. Large portions of Africa’s first encounter with abolitionism was brought to them by white colonialists. In lots of places around the world, European colonialists brought abolitionism and left apartheid and/or balkanization. Abolitionism, as a movement, wholly left women as second class citizens around the world. The inhuman disrespect for life demonstrated by Mao, Stalin, and Hitler not just fails to advance abolitionism, but undercuts its very principles.

    The idea that the US and the freedoms all Americans enjoy is built on slavery and comes with some manner of penance owed is at best willfully ignorant and socially blind and, at worst, heinously evil.

  22. The US is a post Colonial state, still trying to overcome the effects of being yoked to England. England created the economic situations in which slavery thrived, and we as Americans were forced to deal with the consequences of that. You can’t expect it happen overnight.

    1. And Spain and France, you’ve got some stake in that too.

    2. Hmmm, not so sure. Wasn’t the general thought (hope?) at the in 1789 that the “peculiar institution” was dying out? Didn’t the great re-invigoration of slavery in the US stem from the development of the cotton gin, which created a huge demand for a previously marginally available product (raw cotton)?

      1. That was why their only actions was to end the slave trade but not free slaves. They felt and hoped slavery would end on it’s own.

  23. The best response to this 1619 stuff is to give a two sentence negative review under the ‘fiction’ heading, and stop mentioning it.
    “Poorly written, and a very dull rehash of prior propaganda”

    1. +1 ‘Becoming the usual predictable garbage that they NYT seems unable to refuse publishing.’

  24. Both the NYT and Wapo beat the race drum every day. Perhaps they’re hoping that reparations will be given.

  25. My take on 1619 is cynical. If the media is left leaning (and by all accounts it is) then it will tend to go with whatever themes and narratives the DNC runs with.

    The DNC has decided the road to power is through race and racism. 1619 is just an outgrowth of this and is designed to further make Americans feel guilty as progressives with while guilt are apt to do.

    Like how we no longer hear about ‘bankruptcies through medical costs’ I expect the obsession with race and slavery will subside once a Democrat is in power again.

    1. Like how we no longer hear about ‘bankruptcies through medical costs’ I expect the obsession with race and slavery will subside once a Democrat is in power again.

      I expect it to subside once the DNC has, through its ineptitude, winnowed its pool of candidates to Sanders, Biden, and Warren and pick back up when Biden plays the saxophone on the Arsenio Hall show.

      1. Deficit to top $1 trillion per year by 2020, CBO says

        America’s deficit is rising sharply and will surpass $1 trillion per year by 2020, a gap that has grown since Congress cut taxes and increased spending, the Congressional Budget Office reported Monday.

        “The federal budget deficit grows substantially over the next several years,” CBO Budget Director Keith Hall said Wednesday after his agency released the report. “Federal debt is projected to be on a steadily rising trajectory throughout the decade.”

        During debate on the bill, Republican leaders predicted that their proposal would spark massive economic growth that would limit — or even eliminate — additions to the deficit. But the CBO projected Monday that the bill would boost economic growth 0.7 percent over a decade — not enough to keep it from adding to the deficit.

        WHY DO CONSERVATARDS SUPPORT TRUMP’S NEW DEAL …THE BIGGEST CLUSTERFUCK SINCE FDR???

        FOX ABANDONS SINKING SHIP

        FOX NEWS: Trump in big trouble for 2020. Political and economic warning signs there for all to see

        The strong economy Trump touts is anything but and the signs are obvious.

        First, Trump cut taxes and said it would pay for itself. Instead, it has exploded the deficit.

        President Barack Obama inherited a trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2009, but it was down to $600 billion by the time he left office. In just two years, thanks to tax cuts, Trump has taken the deficit back to a trillion dollars. And on “Fox News Sunday,” White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow admitted that the administration is looking at more tax cuts.

        Next, Trump said China would bear the costs of his trade war with them. Really? Trump’s suspension of additional tariffs is an admission that they have been hurting American consumers despite his claims to the contrary. In the Fox News Poll, 46 percent said tariffs were hurting the economy. Americans know the cost of everything has increased while their paychecks haven’t increased.

        The fact is Trump’s best economic growth is 3.5 percent in two quarters out of the 10 quarters he’s been in office, CNBC’s John Harwood reports, adding that same growth figure, 3.5 percent, is Obama’s seventh best quarter, George W. Bush’s eighth best, and Bill Clinton’s 17th best. Yet, Trump claims his economy is the best ever. Far from it.

        If that wasn’t bad enough, a staggering 59 percent of voters think Trump is tearing the country apart.Fox News leaves Trumpsters all alone, twisting in the wind …

        Obama inherited the 2nd worst economy since the 1930s
        Trump started with the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President … FROM OBAMA … and is WORSE than Obama on the economy and the worst EVER on debt, which he campaigned on PAYING OFF!

        Left – Right = Zero

        1. “Obama inherited the 2nd worst economy since the 1930s
          Trump started with the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President … FROM OBAMA … and is WORSE than Obama on the economy and the worst EVER on debt, which he campaigned on PAYING OFF!”

          This miserable old fuck is now cherry-picking the same crap turd has been lying about for the last 3 years. Next he’ll tell us how job growth is stalled (neglecting to mention that we’re within pennies of full employment).
          Perhaps this stinking pile of shit thinks he’s being clever rather than abysmally stupid, but what a pathetic piece of shit either way.

          1. (posted in self-defense of MORE aggression by a mindless bully.)

            PROVE ME WRONG, stop yer damn WHINING,

            “Obama inherited the 2nd worst economy since the 1930s

            PROVE ME WRONG, stop yer damn WHINING,

            Trump started with the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President … FROM OBAMA … and is WORSE than Obama on the economy and the worst EVER on debt, which he campaigned on PAYING OFF!”

            EVEN FOX NEWS SAYS YOU’RE a LYING SACK OF SHOT.

            FOX NEWS: Trump in big trouble for 2020. Political and economic warning signs there for all to see

            The strong economy Trump touts is anything but and the signs are obvious.

            First, Trump cut taxes and said it would pay for itself. Instead, it has exploded the deficit. President Barack Obama inherited a trillion-dollar budget deficit in 2009, but it was down to $600 billion by the time he left office. In just two years, thanks to tax cuts, Trump has taken the deficit back to a trillion dollars. And on “Fox News Sunday,” White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow admitted that the administration is looking at more tax cuts.

            Next, Trump said China would bear the costs of his trade war with them. Really? Trump’s suspension of additional tariffs is an admission that they have been hurting American consumers despite his claims to the contrary. In the Fox News Poll, 46 percent said tariffs were hurting the economy. Americans know the cost of everything has increased while their paychecks haven’t increased.

            The fact is Trump’s best economic growth is 3.5 percent in two quarters out of the 10 quarters he’s been in office, CNBC’s John Harwood reports, adding that same growth figure, 3.5 percent, is Obama’s seventh best quarter, George W. Bush’s eighth best, and Bill Clinton’s 17th best. Yet, Trump claims his economy is the best ever. Far from it.

            If that wasn’t bad enough, a staggering 59 percent of voters think Trump is tearing the country apart.

            AND CBO JAMS UP YER LYIN’ ASS

            Deficit to top $1 trillion per year by 2020, CBO says

            America’s deficit is rising sharply and will surpass $1 trillion per year by 2020, a gap that has grown since Congress cut taxes and increased spending, the Congressional Budget Office reported Monday.

            “The federal budget deficit grows substantially over the next several years,” CBO Budget Director Keith Hall said Wednesday after his agency released the report. “Federal debt is projected to be on a steadily rising trajectory throughout the decade.”

            During debate on the bill, Republican leaders predicted that their proposal would spark massive economic growth that would limit — or even eliminate — additions to the deficit. But the CBO projected Monday that the bill would boost economic growth 0.7 percent over a decade — not enough to keep it from adding to the deficit.

            WHY DO CONSERVATARDS SUPPORT TRUMP’S NEW DEAL …THE BIGGEST CLUSTERFUCK SINCE FDR???

            ****THIS JUST IN: White House today FORCED to admit a recession may be imminent … as Trump sinks ever-deeper into the WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

            1. Fuck off and die, somewhere far away.

              1. ANOTHER FAIL!

                PROVE ME WRONG, stop yer damn WHINING,

                “Obama inherited the 2nd worst economy since the 1930s

                PROVE ME WRONG, stop yer damn WHINING,

                Trump started with the longest recovery EVER for an incoming President … FROM OBAMA … and is WORSE than Obama on the economy and the worst EVER on debt, which he campaigned on PAYING OFF!”

                EVEN FOX NEWS SAYS YOU’RE a LYING SACK OF SHIT

                MOAR WHINING!!!.

                Fuck off and die, somewhere far away.

            2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano having another copypasta bitchfit.

              1. PROOF is a “bitchfit” …. if it PROVES one full of shit.

                WHY DO CONSERVATARDS SUPPORT TRUMP’S NEW DEAL …THE BIGGEST CLUSTERFUCK SINCE FDR???

                ****THIS JUST IN: White House today FORCED to admit a recession may be imminent … as Trump sinks ever-deeper into the WORST PRESIDENT EVER

        2. NolanLibertarian
          August.21.2019 at 6:24 pm

          Lotsa bullshit

          Left – Right = Zero

          Pointing out that the Left is running lots of zeros as candidates for President doesn’t refute your assertions about the Right or Trump in any way and reinforces the assertion of Left – Right = Zero.

          Jesus Christ, man! Cease fire!

          1. MORE bullshit
            Left – Right = Zero

            and reinforces the assertion of Left – Right = Zero.

            FAILS to deny bullshit. Or to READ.

            For any other retards.
            1) that means Left and Right have the same value … whatever value one assigns … for those who flunked 7th grade algebra.
            2) And what they share HERE is … bullshit. Thus the “Right or Trump” excuse is LAME/ILLITERATE

            Jesus Christ, man! Cease fire!

            I’m not Jesus Christ.
            This is self-defense.

  26. It’s unhealthy to constantly dwell on the past. How can you progress safely and get anywhere if you’re constantly looking in the review mirror?

    My home province of Quebec is the perfect example. It enacts anti-liberty laws because the past.

    1. We remember Rufus. We remember!!

      Progs look to the past because you can’t destroy present institutions without first discrediting them.

      1. Trump is destroying ‘merica more directly.

  27. What bothers me most is the revisionism about the 3/5ths Compromise. Of course it wasn’t ideal, but 1:1 representation would give Southerners the edge they needed to make sure it was democratically impossible to address slavery. Just like Democrats today use illegal immigrants to steal electoral votes and Congressional seats, they used slaves in the past to gain more representation; not for the slaves, of course. The 3/5ths Compromise was the only way we could form a nation without starting a civil war. Without the Compromise, we might still have slavery today.

  28. Bravo. I think this is well done. Medium rare anyway.

  29. Go back far enough, and most everyone’s ancestors were slaves, slaveholders, or both.

    Where’s my reparations for the Norman invasion?

    1. Jerry, which side of that one do I get? Paid to me for the Vikings having taken so many Irish slaves, or paid by me since some of my Swedish forebears must certainly have occasionally gone a-viking and taken slaves (in many places)?

      1. More like historical fact.

    2. Go back far enough, and most everyone’s ancestors were slaves, slaveholders, or both.

      I routinely force my kids to work for no pay and they don’t get a vote much the same way my parents did and, I presume, pretty much all parents throughout history have done. Maybe notably except the parents/societies who conscripted their kids as soon as they were physically/mentally capable and the parents of orphans.

  30. one notable constant through history–a load is a load.

  31. Speaking of revisionism … the title here comes close.
    Jefferson STRONGLY opposed the Constitution we wound up with — as a severe violation of “consent of the governed” — but he supported what was adopted as “consent of the governed.”

    And the reasons solidly cement his values as solidly libertarian, which I hesitate to say at today’s reason.com.

    He was in France, as Ambassador, during the Constitutional Convention, and sent his objection in a lengthy letter to Madison … which was ignored, as it would be be today, by authoritarians left and right.

    One convention goal was a perpetual constitution, because the confederacy had lasted only 18 years. This enraged Jefferson, who had clearly been expanding the moral concept, consent of the governed. 18 years seemed quite proper. His argument on debt may play easier for non-liberty types — especially today.

    NO generation has ANY right to commit a later generation to $22 Trillion in debt … without their vote. I’m looking at you Rand Paul, and all the other mooches who say Trump’s tax cuts are “keeping more of my own money.” — when they’re actually stealing from their own children and grandchildren. DUH.

    Likewise, how can any later generation be bound to an entire government …. without their consent?

    Jefferson’s logic and values are impeccable, yet generate rage from … both authoritarian sides.

    He nailed it … “government by might not by right” … “by consent of the dead.” By what right? BLANK-OUT.

    “The earth belongs to the living.” WOW.

    “What the Founders intended” has meaning to many on the right, unless it’s inconvenient to their tribal agenda. What the Founders intended regarding church and state is far more explicit, but they ignore that, even lie about it. Shamelessly.

    “… to secure a free state” means securing a government. If the Founders intended us to be armed AGAINST the state. they’d have said so. They did not. It’s not just libruls manipulated by hysteria, is it?

    And “what the founders intended” has ,,, ummnm … FAILED … long ago. The 17th Amendment, alone destroyed THE greatest check against federal power.

    Jefferson’s solution … self-evident … a new Constitutional Convention every 20 years. They MAY change nothing. But it’s all on the table, MUCH more honest than the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    “WHAT IF THEY….” is the rage of an authoritarian — defying Jefferson, Ayn Rand, John Locke and all, on Natural Law.

    The pious and somber utterances of, “What the founder intended” … is just as anti-liberty as as a “living constitution.” They both say, fuck will of the people, fuck consent of the governed …. fuck individual liberty,

    Oh, and the short version on slavery: It had existed for all of human history, was cited and accepted in the Old Testament, brought to our land from Europe ,… and we repealed it a mere 70 years after (our revised) founding. Yes, Mexico, England and others did it much sooner, but a blink of any eye in human history. None need be ashamed. But racism .. and Trump /Charlottesville….

    1. And “what the founders intended” has ,,, ummnm … FAILED … long ago.

      “WHAT IF THEY….” is the rage of an authoritarian — defying Jefferson,

      So the modern authoritarians are defying the intentions that failed long ago?

      Profound words indeed from a craziest(-as-fuck) of true scotsman.

      1. So the modern authoritarians are defying the intentions that failed long ago? WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

        Profound words indeed from a craziest(-as-fuck) of true scotsman.

        PROVE HIM WRONG YOU SNIVELING COWARD … NO MORE INFANTILE SNEERING

        1. “PROVE HIM WRONG YOU SNIVELING COWARD … NO MORE INFANTILE SNEERING”

          “The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true.”
          The pathetic excuse for a human auditioning as a ransom-note writer is nothing if not ignorant.
          Fuck off and die.

        2. I’m taking him (you) at his word, no disagreement, nothing to prove wrong. It doesn’t make sense.

          Jefferson’s ideology cannot be both failed and the working model which authoritarians can defy. Either it failed and authoritarians are defying a failed ideology or it works/worked and authoritarians are defying a working model of liberty. Saying it failed, is a working model of liberty, and that authoritarians are defying a failed working model of liberty is nonsense. Especially if you consider all failed models of liberty to be authoritarian.

          1. jefferson’s ideology cannot be both failed and the working model which authoritarians can defy.

            Typically crazy statement. As an authoritarian, you, you defy it,.

            Now you resort to mindless dumbfuckery

            defying a failed ideology

            An ideology cannot fail, IF IT’S NEVER BEEN ADOPTED … RETARD.
            What failed was a PROPOSAL … NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED.

            SO YOU’RE FULL OF SHIT ON (A) IDEOLOGY AND (B) FAILED.

            THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING THAT SEVO IS FULL OF SHIT ALSO.

            YOUR ILK ARE REALLY QUITE RETARDED.
            THANK YOU FOR PROVING IT, WITH THE RAGING IMBECILITY OF A TRUMPTARD.

            (SNEER)

      2. Besides Jefferson later endorsed the Constitution and his endorsement, paired with Patrick Henry’s objection led to an irreconcilable rift in their long friendship and alliance.

        1. As he said, Jefferson honored the principle, consent of the governed. Henry wanted to conserve the confederacy, so was out of touch with the entire convention. Ad I recall he wanted to be a delegate, solely to defend the Confederacy.

          Jefferson for the win.

          1. Henry refused to be a delegate. He turned down the opportunity. BTW the Confederacy was not the Confederacy of Civil war era. Henry objected to giving to much power a central Government. Much of his warnings about centralized Government proved prophetic.

            1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano knows as much about history as he does about the gun control he so desperately craves.

            2. . BTW the Confederacy was not the Confederacy of Civil war era.

              Which is WHY you’re full of shit!

              REPEAT; HOW CAN AN IDEOLOGY FAIL, IF IT’S NEVER BEEN APPLIED?

              WHY DID *YOU* FAIL TO STATE HENRY’S EXPRESSLY STATED VIEW ON THE 9TH AMENDMENT?

      3. Don’t pretend like you are two different people. Stop switching socks to defend yourself.

        1. Cowardly diversion
          BE A MAN, raging Trumptard.

          1. Since I am neither a fan nor an abhorrent of Trump’s you simplistic ad hominem is a demonstration of your inability to engage and you aren’t fooling anyone with your multiple socks. You love to insult others but then scream and kick when the tables are turned on you. Closed head injury possibly?
            Please cut and paste and bold your next reply. And please make it the same asinine, repetitive trope you always dish out. If you ever said anything original or half way on topic and historically accurate, I’d probably fall out of my chair. Please, call me a trumptard again because simplistic ad hominems and straw men seem to be about as intelligent as you can get using any of your multiple socks. I normally criticize Tullap for calling everyone a sock, but it is rather self evident in your case.

            1. ANOTHER COWARDLY DIVERSION

  32. The NYT hasn’t had any credibility ever since Walter Duranty, the ultimate ass kisser of Stalin, took over the paper.
    Only the insane would read anything from this far leftist rag.

    1. Just as crazy as Fox, Breitbart, Infowars, Daily Caller.
      But some place tribal loyalty above truth.

      And you’re … brainwasheds. Read the NEWS pages at the Times. Every bit as independent as the NEWS anchors at Fox.

      It was the NYT who reported how the 2008 crash was created by CLINTON. And WHY the middle-class is declining, and more. The Washington Post NEWS pages reported that the WORST rate of health uninsured is ,… Medicaid eligibles … where it has LONG been a right …. and FAILS. As do you

      So you’ve just proclaimed yourself a champion of opinion over factual news. You, and your equivalent on the left are THE problem in America

      Left – Right = Zero
      Discover libertarian values .. like over 60% of Americans, the only adults in the room.

      1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        1. Discover liberty, thug.

          1. Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

            1. Make him, you mouthy, cowardly punk.

              1. Two old dudes telling each other to die. Fight it out with your canes, fellas.

                1. Sevo is bedridden, I’m told. Why he’s so vicious.

                2. Chipper Morning Wood
                  August.21.2019 at 9:19 pm
                  “Two old dudes telling each other to die. Fight it out with your canes, fellas.”

                  One fucking lefty ignoramus making ups stories.
                  Go fuck off and die; take that scumbag Hihn with you.

                3. BTW, we’re all still waiting for your magic solution to ending WWII without those icky nuclear weapons.
                  I have no idea how old you are, as if it matters, but you’re as much a fucking ignoramus as Hihn, so can we just assume that whatever passes for a thought process in your case has come up with NOTHING?

                  1. Still waiting, asshole.

                  2. BTW, we’re all still waiting for your magic solution to ending WWII without those icky nuclear weapons.

                    BTW, his assaults get crazier and crazier and crazier …

                4. “Chipper Morning Wood
                  August.21.2019 at 9:19 pm

                  Lefty fucking ignoramus has yet to deliver the magic soluttion!
                  Hey, fuck-face! Put up or fuck off!
                  Still waiting….

                  1. Psycho liar. PROVE IT, like I do,

  33. We should all know by now how this works. It’s the old tactic of de-legitimizing an institution so you can abolish and replace it. Reparations, Electoral College, just the start.

    And this publication plays the same game with cops. They’re all corrupt, trigger-happy racists. Right, Reason?

    1. You deny ANY of them are. Right, goober?
      Shame on you.

      1. Shame on you for failing reading comprehension so thoroughly.

        1. COWARDLY EVASION, NUWANDA
          DO YOU DENY THAT ANY COPS ARE CORRUPT OR RACIST?

          You REALLY don’t know that you were called out as a lying sack of shit. about reason?

          PROVE IT OR SHUT UP,
          NOW DO YOU COMPREHEND? (sneer)

          1. “NOW DO YOU COMPREHEND? (sneer)”
            Yes, we comprehend that you are a pathetic excuse for a human being and are long passed your due-date.
            Fuck off and die where you won’t stink up the place.

  34. “As part of its ambitious “1619” inquiry into the legacy of slavery, The New York Times revives false 19th century revisionist history about the American founding.”

    When an organization spouts lies, you are certainly allowed to eschew obfuscation and point out that they are LIARS.

    1. (snort) You just lied about what you quoted.

      1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

        1. A liar AND a thug!!! (smirk)
          Like all whiny pussies

          1. An asshole and an ignoramus! And someone who spent time in jail for impersonating ransom notes!
            Fuck off and die.

  35. BTW, what was, at the time, the North West Territory (what became Ohio and states west of there) was settled beginning in Ohio through the purchase of land from the government by ‘associations’. By agreement in those associations, slavery was prohibited in perpetuity; slaves were never held west of PA and north of the Ohio River (“The Pioneers”, McCullough, pgs 11-14 or so)
    Are those who trace their ancestry there to be excused from ‘reparations’?

    1. What about YOUR reparations … for disgracing the political right,
      with ANOTHER moronic comment?

      1. Fuck off and die, scumbag.

        1. …disgracing the political right, with ANOTHER moronic comment.

          Typical fascist.

    2. No excuses. Sevo. But in fairness, you ought to have a choice. Either pay reparations with everyone else. Or opt out, and just personally take responsibility for legally approved dispossession of black land owners since 2000. Since there hasn’t been any discrimination against blacks since the end of Jim Crow, that should let you off Scot free, right? Good deal for you!

      1. I probably should have said “legally rigged,” instead of “legally approved.” Have to keep the trickery from being mixed up with the other stuff.

  36. One reason the founders accepted the slave states should have been mentioned: military necessity. A United States was militarily stronger and a disunited states. Let’s not forget the war of independence. I think it’s in the first part of the constitution wherein proving a common defense is listed as a raison d’etre for a federal government. One year followed another and the crisis of slavery erupted when the United States was secure enough from outside forces to allow the inner rift to finally tear the country apart in war.

    1. Ummm, you REALLY never heard of he Articles of Confederacy???
      You people have the craziest reasons to justify your racist defense of slavery
      .

      1. Yes, what were the articles of Confederacy and when were they enacted?

        1. whoooooooooooooooooooooosh
          BEFORE THIS
          <blockquote? I think it’s in the first part of the constitution wherein proving a common defense is listed as a raison d’etre for a federal government.Anything else?

      2. And then explain how that in any ways discounts what he posted.

        1. A central government already existed. (smirk)

          “Under the Articles, Congress had the authority to regulate and fund the Continental Army, ”

          Umm, the common defense. If I count correctly, that’s your ninth fuckup on the page, blowhard.
          .

  37. If only Eli Whitney was born two hundred years earlier

  38. Is everyone choosing to ignore the blatant logical error in this article?

    1. Does Pedantic Man want to tell us what the entire lot of us missed?

      1. I have no need to engage in useless conversations. I understand white nationalist theology for what it is already.

    2. Can you provide it? The logical error that is.

  39. They were at least white nationalists, as the Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizenship to “free White persons of good character”.

    Ben Franklin’s white nationalist vision for America.
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-04-02-0080

    Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, 1751
    — Ben Franklin
    24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.
    I could wish their Numbers were increased.
    And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

    1. His later writings took a different tone.

    2. Also, the naturalization act of 1790 applied only to immigrants. A number of states allowed free blacks citizenship.

  40. This is a really disappointing argument and forms part of the problem plaguing modern discourse. I do applaud the author for his respectful tone towards the NYT authors he disagrees with and as well for pointing out the parts of their article he thinks are important and agrees with- those are both things too rarely seen right now. Ill also add that I haven’t read the NYT article, but it has no bearing on my complaint here. To state it plainly, it is either a credibility crippling oversight or intellectual dishonesty to make this argument while wholly ignoring the most obvious and damaging counter-fact: the 3/5th’s compromise, which is by the very definition of the word racism. It is troubling because it seems likely to me that the author is guilty of the thing he rails against- engaging in a propaganda-esque approach to discussion of historical truths in order to further his preferred narrative.

    The author could have made a more restrained argument that didn’t necessitate ignoring the 3/5ths compromise. He could have reigned his argument in by removing the obviously problematic if not plain wrong assertion that the NYT was wrong in writing “the founders “used” “racist ideology” “at the nation’s founding.” He could have recognized that they literally did use racist ideology in the Constitution when they decided to count blacks as only 3/5 of a person but argued that using a racist ideology doesn’t always mean someone is racist and there’s plenty of evidence that many of the founders loathed that they had to insert that into the document and loathed that they had to essentially punt the issue of slavery to be determined later out of necessity to form a union. I could go on but my point has been made. There’s a reason why the author didn’t make the more restrained version of this argument and theres a reason why the author completely ignored the most destructive piece of counter evidence to his conclusions. Perhaps it was an accident, something that just didn’t come into mind, but given the obvious intellectual prowess of the author, it seems unlikely to me that would be the case.

    1. The 3/5th compromise only applied to slaves not to free blacks. It was exactly what it states a compromise. The south wanted all slaves counted to increase their representation in Congress. The northern states, where slavery was less popular wanted all slaves discounted, not because of racism but because as slaves they were not citizens. They had no problem with freed slaves being counted just those still in bondage. It was an admission of that slavery existed but to describe it as racially motivated is not to understand what it was actually about.

      1. I was not unaware of any of what you write. I teach law. Also I did not describe it as racially motivated, I described it as an instance of the founders using racist ideology in the Constitution, which it literally is. I made sure to carefully note that using a racist ideology is not tantamount to being a racist and just the same I did not say that any use of a racist of ideology is racially motivated (the action and the purpose behind the action are two separate things and should be scrutinized independently). Lastly, your comment really is, in the most important way, underscoring the point I made- it is inexcusable to have omitted the 3/5 compromise from this article, especially given that there were so many moderated paths the author could have taken that directly recognized and discussed its existence.

        1. “I was not unaware of any of what you write. I teach law. Also I did not describe it as racially motivated, I described it as an instance of the founders using racist ideology in the Constitution, which it literally is.”
          Not if it was applied to a class of people within that race.
          Try again.

          1. A racist ideology can be applied to a single person of a race or the race entire.

            1. dond
              August.21.2019 at 11:40 pm
              “A racist ideology can be applied to a single person of a race or the race entire.”

              Pedantry can be used to hide all sorts of nonsense.

              1. Agreed! You keep advancing the core of my argument- the NYT author relied on some careful crafting of words in making the statement that the founding fathers used racist ideology in the Constitution, instead of ignoring the reality of history that makes the statement technically correct, why not recognize that reality of history and take her to task for being pedantic with her language to fit a narrative to the facts? Truly I think you and I are actually on quite a similar page with this and we don’t much disagree about this.

                1. “…instead of ignoring the reality of history that makes the statement technically correct, why not recognize that reality of history and take her to task for being pedantic with her language to fit a narrative to the facts?…”

                  OK, but I remain unconvinced of the “racism” claim.
                  Again, the 3/5 rule applied to those who were held as slaves, NOT to blacks in general.

              2. “A racist ideology can be applied to a single person of a race or the race entire.”

                Just to be clear, in the 3/5-rule, it was neither. It applied to those held in slavery, neither an individual, nor an entire race.

                1. Are you claiming that American slavery was not principally about black populations? If you are, I’ve got no intelligent response to that claim and can only shake my head. If you aren’t claiming that, I don’t see any useful point in your comment that isn’t relying on the very pedantry i thought we both concurred is silly to use to hide or bend truths.

                  1. dond
                    August.22.2019 at 12:15 am
                    “Are you claiming that American slavery was not principally about black populations?”
                    No, and I’m not willing to engage strawman claims.

                    1. There was a question mark at the end of my sentence, not a period, not an exclamation point. It was not a claim of any variety, it was a question to you asked because I dislike making assumptions about what people were trying to say when instead of that I can just ask them what they were trying to say.

                    2. He’s alway used cowardly diversions.
                      FEEL the raging hatred

                  2. We’ll the first slaves were Indians. And then a number of white indentured servants (especially Scots and Irish) were such by coercion. So it was less about blacks and more about rich gentry.

                  3. Are you claiming that American slavery was not principally about black populations?

                    What do you mean by “being about”? You’re equivocating.

                    1. COWARDLY EVASION, (snort)

        2. I described it as an instance of the founders using racist ideology in the Constitution, which it literally is.

          How is a law that is literally based on a condition of servitude and makes no reference to race “literally using racist ideology”?

          I did not say that any use of a racist of ideology is racially motivated

          Well, we know what motivated the 3/5th compromise: staunch opposition to slavery.

          So, neither the text of the 3/5th compromise is “literally using racist ideology”, nor was it motivated by racist ideology.

          I was not unaware of any of what you write. I teach law.

          You are a testament to the sorry state of US universities.

        3. How retarded are they???

          I teach law

          THIS IS HISTORY

          I did not describe it as racially motivated, I described it as an instance of the founders using racist ideology in the Constitution

          Even crazier ….

          using a racist ideology is not tantamount to being a racist

          ALL racists deny being racists .. but rarely as crazily

          “Using Christian ideology does not mean being a Christian.”
          “Using Marxist ideology does not mean being Marxist”
          “Being retarded does not mean being a Trumptard.”

    2. “…To state it plainly, it is either a credibility crippling oversight or intellectual dishonesty to make this argument while wholly ignoring the most obvious and damaging counter-fact: the 3/5th’s compromise, which is by the very definition of the word racism….”

      To state it plainly: bullshit.
      You, in 2019, apply your standards to those in the late 18th century.
      Either you are driven by partisanship, or perhaps are lacking in education, or are simply not bright enough to understand history.

      1. Stating that the 3/5 compromise exists in the Constitution is not applying a standard, it is a statement of fact. I carefully and intentionally avoided applying any moral standard or reaching any moral judgment on the founding fathers. I prefer commenters who do not claim I said or did things that I did not say or do, it is difficult to have a productive intellectual discussion otherwise.

        1. “Stating that the 3/5 compromise exists in the Constitution is not applying a standard, it is a statement of fact.”
          Yes, and you called it “racism”, which is applying a standard.

          “I prefer commenters who do not claim I said or did things that I did not say or do, it is difficult to have a productive intellectual discussion otherwise.”
          I’ll see if I can find some folks who won’t disagree with you.

          1. Racism is a word that has a definition. Using the word in a way that is completely consistent with that definition is not applying a standard, it is communicating.

            1. “Racism is a word that has a definition. Using the word in a way that is completely consistent with that definition is not applying a standard, it is communicating.”

              Using the same word as a pejorative is applying a standard.
              Do you really think your claim to authority allows you to get away with that BS?

              1. This is the second time you are claiming i did or said something that I did not do or say. I expressed no judgment good or bad on the founding fathers and made no statement regarding whether I approved or disapproved of their behavior. My personal judgment of them was not relevant to my criticism of the author’s argument and so I did not offer my personal judgment of them.

                1. Gonna disagree; see above. That’s all I’m going to say.

                  1. You are certainly free to disagree. But why not instead just take my word for it that to the extent you thought I was using the word as a pejorative it was a misunderstanding of what I was intending to communicate? I concede that certainly the word racist is so frequently used as a pejorative that its reasonable for you to have assumed I was using it as a pejorative.

                    1. I stand by my comment.

                    2. I’ll sit by my comment, im dog a$$ tired. Sorry that I couldn’t break through and get you to understand that I intended no pejorative, it would have been a happier outcome on my end.

  41. The Founders didn’t invent slavery. They did provide, via the Declaration of Independence, the words that could be used to get rid of it when the time was right. Lincoln took the words of the Declaration and ran with it. We had a civil war, many people died, but in the end slavery was abolished. Pretty good record, is what I say.

    1. This comment reminds me of Jack Nicholson’s as president of the united states in the movie “Mars Attacks!” when he said “We still have 2 out of 3 branches of government and that aint bad!”

      1. You didn’t cover yourself in glory right there.
        When you find perfection, please let the rest of us know where we can find it.

        1. 1972 Miami Dolphins already figured it out.

          1. I figured some dose of sophistry was your limit.

      2. I wish you’d bring the same kind of fervor to modern day slavery, where many people in the US spend half their working hours as slaves to the state.

        1. WHAT A FUCKING RETARD
          CONSERVATARD = PROGTARD

          1. Did someone hurt Gruppenfuhrer Hihn’s fee-fees?

  42. I can see Washington, Jefferson, and (mistakenly) Lincoln, but WTH is Teddy doing up there?
    Why did depression-ear taxpayers pay people to live in the boonies and carve rocks regarding people some of us (taxpayers) really don’t like?

    1. Teddy took on both the Corporate Caliphate’s sultans and their allies in the Conservative donor class, and won.

    2. Mainly he was on there for two reasons: first because of his conservationism and second because he was a cousin (distant) to FDR and the uncle (and surrogate father) to FDRs wife.

      1. CONSERVATARDS ALWAYS LIE ABOUT HISTORY

        At age 42, Teddy Roosevelt became the youngest man to assume the U.S. presidency after President William McKinley was assassinated in 1901. He won a second term in 1904. Known for his anti-monopoly policies and ecological conservationism, Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in ending the Russo-Japanese War.

        FDR was 18 when Teddy took office as VP.

        Rough Riders. The most famous of all the units fighting in Cuba, the “Rough Riders” was the name given to the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt.Roosevelt resigned his position as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in May 1898 to join the volunteer cavalry.

        THIS is why a growing majority of American DETEST partisan BIGOTRY and LIES, like yours. SHAME ON YOU.

        Libertarians speaking Truth to Power, left and right, or nearly 60 years.

        1. And that disproved what I said how? The question is why, during the depression, did they include Theodore Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore. FDRs age in 1901 has nothing to do with what happened 30 years later. But then again, I know that in your addled mind your post actually makes sense.

        2. And please show what in my statement was a lie? Can you?

  43. I am making 10,000 Dollar at home own laptop .Just do work online 4 to 6 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do

    …….. Read More

    1. I don’t think people would pay me that much as a “cam girl”…

      1. Stupid girls like you have no value.
        Anywhere

  44. “the fact that they did not free the slaves on July 4, 1776”

    That’s more than a fact, like Jesus said: ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’

    1. It is far more complicated. Many wanted to. In fact Jefferson mentioned slavery and condemned it in the declaration of Independence, but was overruled. Secondly, the Continental Congress had little control over each colony and thus couldn’t compel any colony to do anything. This persisted with the Articles of Confederation. Third, to form a united front against England it was decided to not address slavery at that time but to revisit it. Fourth, most felt slavery was dying of anyhow (and it was before the cotton gin was invented).

    2. “the fact that they did not free the slaves on July 4, 1776”

      That’s more than a fact, like Jesus said: ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’

      States formed a voluntary union, a union they could arguably leave at will. An act of Congress to free slaves on “July 4, 1776” would have doomed the US to failure from the start.

      Southern states joined the union knowing full well that they weren’t going to win the argument on slavery in the long term, but people believed that ending slavery needed to be a gradual process. Given that slavery was still widespread throughout the world and the West, that was hardly a particularly unusual view to take at the time.

    3. Learn what happened on that July 4th

      ‘By their fruits ye shall know them.’

      Now we know you.

  45. “none of its words would have to be changed for Congress to eliminate slavery overnight.”

    Then why was a 13th and 14th Amendment needed:

    . . . The federal government required new state constitutions in former Confederate states to include the abolition of slavery, but there was nothing to prevent states from reinstituting the practice with revised state constitutions. Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, and John Henderson of Missouri, sponsored resolutions for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery nationwide. The Thirteenth Amendment—passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864; by the House on January 31, 1865; and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865—abolished slavery “within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” . . .

    1. He is right in that nothing in the Constitution required the US to recognize it endorse slavery and they could have passed aforementioned law. The question is did the 9th and 10th amendment protect slavery? That is why they felt the 13th and 14th amendment were needed. To clarify that the federal government had this power.

    2. Then why was a 13th and 14th Amendment needed:

      Congress could have acted to end slavery any time. The 13th and 14th took away any choice Congress may have had by making a prohibition against slavery part of the Constitution.

      (Arguably, slavery was already incompatible with the US Constitution and 13/14 only served to restate rights already retained by the people, just like 1-8 did.)

      1. Rights owed to me by nature are like debts owed to me by family members. I prefer them on paper.

        1. Kuni was implying that these rights didn’t previously exist because the 13/14A “were needed”, and that argument is clearly false, your personal preferences notwithstanding.

          1. You lose AGAIN. The Emancipation Proclamation. And, umm, slaves were NOT citizens. (lol)

            1. The Emancipation Proclamation. And, umm, slaves were NOT citizens. (lol)

              But a simple law could have made them citizens; it did not require a constitutional amendment.

              You lose AGAIN.

              You display your senility and lack of competence AGAIN.

              1. Now goober says Constitution can be amended with a law!!!!

  46. She is certainly correct that “without the idealistic, strenuous and patriotic efforts of black Americans, our democracy today would most likely look very different” and “might not be a democracy at all.”

    Yes: we’d be more of the liberal republic that the founders envisioned, instead of having one large party advocating democratic socialism and neo-Marxist grief mongering while trying to send blacks back to the new plantation.

    1. Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazies. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof

      The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
      “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
      Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
      Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

      Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry, on the left OR right.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
      As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction.
      While authoritarians, Left and Right, are braying like jackasses, whining like pussies and chirping like dodo birds.

      1. You’re a fascist, Hihn, and everybody here tells you to go to hell.

        1. A fascist is anyone ENRAGED by UNDENIABLE proof, blowhard.
          (smirk)
          .

          1. A fascist is anyone ENRAGED by UNDENIABLE proof

            That’s not the usual definition, but it fits you as well, Hihn, in spades.

            1. YOU SAID ITS WAS FASCIST TO POST ABSOLUTE PROOF.
              WHY LIE WHEN EVERYONE CAN SEE THAT PROOF THAT YOU’RE A PSYCHO?

  47. I am developing a first rate half of time financial advantage from home with the aid of using running my PC . I even have used an internet system and presently I clearly have created $18987 This month. all of us of you’ll be Able to use this home income device and earn extra from intention Half Time. test this website for added data regarding developing cash….but earlier than this you need to visist the following website online …………
    ►►HOME► MEDIA► TECH►AND more thank you HomeEarning7.com

  48. Irony – NYT (the newspaper for the party of slavery – Democrats) running articles about slavery but never mentioning Democrats are the party of slavery..

    Tomorrows news — How “slaving” doctors for healthcare is a “right”.

    1. Now Trump’s totally shameless lie about Charlottesville, sucking up to white supremacists and neo-nazies. Bad enough that he said both sides were to blame. But he also went bat-shit crazy, saying the counter-protesters charged the nazis, swinging clubs. UNDENIABLE proof

      The initial assault, Charlottesville– Nazis and white supremacists attacking peaceful protesters with clubs
      “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
      Alt-Right Fascists/Racists crash into them en masse, swinging clubs.
      Fascists are carrying the same shields as cops in riot gear. The motherfuckers CAME for violence.

      Shame on Trump and ANYONE who defends lies, hatred and bigotry, on the left OR right.

      Left – Right = Zero
      Libertarians have said that for 50 years. A growing majority of Americans now agree.
      As the “traditional” left and right shrink toward extinction.
      While authoritarians, Left and Right, are braying like jackasses, whining like pussies and chirping like dodo birds.

  49. The real point, is that almost no one, except white men, were given any rights. Women, irrespective of skin color were never even mentioned in the US Constitution; and women were 50% of the overall population! Native Americans were never mentioned and neither was anyone else. Slavery was used in place of people of African descent and they were really only mentioned in terms of how they could be considered for census and voting rights (for white people). Women no mention at all – like we just didn’t even exist! There have always been oversights in all founding documents; the Magna Carta is one. It given men rights, but “men” were designated to be knights; not the common man (and certainly not women of any level). It is now interpreted, like the US Constitution to include women and everyone else, not just white men. AND, there is still work needed on the Constitution to ensure the rights of women and other, when considering the SCOTUS and what is does and doesn’t do for and against the citizens of this country.

    1. WRONG

      Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 states that “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … excluding Indians not taxed.”[2] According to Story’s Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution, “There were Indians, also, in several, and probably in most, of the states at that period, who were not treated as citizens, and yet, who did not form a part of independent communities or tribes, exercising general sovereignty and powers of government within the boundaries of the states.”

      Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that “Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”,[3] determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations;[4] and

      The United States Constitution did not mention women or limit any of its rights or privileges to males. The word “persons” was used, which sounds gender neutral. However, common law, inherited from British precedents, informed the interpretation of the law.

      The principle of coverture prevailed at the time the Constitution was written and adopted: a married woman was simply not a person under the law; her legal existence was bound up with that of her husband’s.

      Dower rights, meant to protect a widow’s income during her lifetime, were already being ignored increasingly, and so women were in the tough position of not having significant rights to own property, while the convention of dower that had protected them under that system was collapsing. Beginning in the 1840s, women’s rights advocates began working to establish legal and political equality for women in some of the states. Property rights of women were among the first targets. But these did not affect the federal constitutional rights of women. Not yet.

  50. Fourth Reich actually made a valid point for once. And it was even on subject. The Constitution does mention Native Americans (BTW I grew up on a reservation, most that I know prefer Indian or American Indian). Race wasn’t mentioned outside of Indians “not taxed” (if they paid taxes they could be considered full citizens), even in the 3/5th compromise doesn’t mention race at all. In fact the exact wording is “three fifths of all other Persons (excluding indians and free persons).
    Also, the 14A undid the 3/5 compromise. The argument as to what the Constitution did or did not cover is also slightly mute as the Constitution has a mechanism in place to amend it when needed. Which has happened 17 times since passage (there is 27 amendments, but the first ten were entered en Bloc).

  51. No false revisionism in the Times series. Some bad historiography, maybe, but the points remain justified.

    As a society, and as an economy, this nation’s founding took place long before the American Revolution, during the colonial era. The revolution did remarkably little to disrupt the evolving economic patterns already laid down prior to it.

    The story of the North’s economic history is well known, and widely taught. The story of the slave economy of the South has become much better known since the mid-20th century, but remains to be widely taught. Full understanding of the history of the national economy has awaited informed integration of knowledge from both regions, and that has barely happened. The Times series is a beginning effort to inform the public about more-recent scholarship.

    By focusing too much on the revolutionary era, Sandefur obscures far more than he ought to. That is apparently his intent. It’s a tendentious piece.

    1. Ummm, what time period is covered in the NYT series?

      1. Well, they call it the 1619 series. That might be a clue.

        1. How’d ya miss it?

  52. The story of the North’s economic history is well known, and widely taught. The story of the slave economy of the South has become much better known since the mid-20th century, but remains to be widely taught. Full understanding of the history of the national economy has awaited informed integration of knowledge from both regions, and that has barely happened. The Times series is a beginning effort to inform the public about more-recent scholarship.

    “96% percent of academic historians agree that slavery, in combination with capitalism, was a unique system created by white males to oppress and exploit the rest of the world and prevent the widespread adoption of socialism, the only form of government ever shown to produce universal wealth, equality, and harmony.”

    1. SOURCE?

  53. I don’t get the assertion that the Constitution did absolutely nothing to protect slavery. What about the fugitive slave clause?

    1. Racists defend slavery, in honor of Trump

    2. What “fugitive slave clause” would that be?

      1. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3,
        “No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.”

  54. The corrupt, hypocritical WAPO, etc. NYT wits, are the real promoters of the adoration of slavery, mindless slavery to a mendacious cesspool of Trump Derangement Syndrome no rational, intelligent can stomach, only fellows in the clown car.

  55. The Constitution was a glorious liberty document. Today, it’s pretty much been rendered a nullity and we are just living in a state of force.

Please to post comments