Jump to content

were our forefathers liberals ?


were our forefathers liberals ?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. were our forefathers liberals ?



Recommended Posts

In modern day terms they were not liberals. They didn't want to pay taxes to Britain, the primary problem, i.e., rich people wanting to get richer and keep more of everything the movers and shakers. The original Constitution had no Bill of Rights, Christian forces who wouldn't ratify the document in Rhode Island and Virginia forcing that issue. In other words, the first Constitution was oblivious to these basic rights many would define the U.S. by.

 

As to the theme of freedom, all this glorious freedom supposedly at the heart of the nation's birth? The founders were slavers, and we remained slavers, even after Britain gave it up for the morality of it, which, again, was a money, a greed issue, that superseded even basic humanity. It took us a senseless, very bloody civil war to hash out some basic morality to exceed mercantile issues. Even Washington only freed his slaves in his will, guess this champion of freedom was done with them?

 

So, they were conservative, though Jefferson did have liberal, egalitarian notions that tore down the concept of America as a nation "of the elites," such as Adams was enamored of, in the election of 1800, on the other hand everybody knowing Jefferson took liberties with a female slave, probably a bit of sexual harassment for our day? Jefferson had some very liberal notions, though they didn't go as deep as his desire to entertain his carnal appetites for free with the "employees."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In modern day terms they were not liberals. They didn't want to pay taxes to Britain, the primary problem, i.e., rich people wanting to get richer and keep more of everything the movers and shakers. The original Constitution had no Bill of Rights, Christian forces who wouldn't ratify the document in Rhode Island and Virginia forcing that issue. In other words, the first Constitution was oblivious to these basic rights many would define the U.S. by.

 

As to the theme of freedom, all this glorious freedom supposedly at the heart of the nation's birth? The founders were slavers, and we remained slavers, even after Britain gave it up for the morality of it, which, again, was a money, a greed issue, that superseded even basic humanity. It took us a senseless, very bloody civil war to hash out some basic morality to exceed mercantile issues. Even Washington only freed his slaves in his will, guess this champion of freedom was done with them?

 

So, they were conservative, though Jefferson did have liberal, egalitarian notions that tore down the concept of America as a nation "of the elites," such as Adams was enamored of, in the election of 1800, on the other hand everybody knowing Jefferson took liberties with a female slave, probably a bit of sexual harassment for our day? Jefferson had some very liberal notions, though they didn't go as deep as his desire to entertain his carnal appetites for free with the "employees."

the slave-girl probably liked it, though. to carry and birth the master's child would give her a superior status amongst the slave class.

jefferson didn't rape or harass a pretty colored girl. he gave her what she wanted. it was more an act of charity than anything, on his part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they were "liberals" because they were traitors to the english crown. once they established their own government, they ceased to be "liberals".

because that's what liberals are......traitors to nation.

but today they claim the right are the traitors for stating they will secede or use their firearms to defeat the liberal progressive opressive government

 

was paul revere a liberal ?

 

on his famous ride, did he promote "raise our taxes" "punish success" "ban firearms"

 

I dont think so...

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in the terms that liberals are today. You really can't say yes or no to your poll because it doesn't apply to the term today. Your poll needs to be amended.

 

You look at their ideas about goverment and they have nothing in common with liberals of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in the terms that liberals are today. You really can't say yes or no to your poll because it doesn't apply to the term today. Your poll needs to be amended.

 

You look at their ideas about goverment and they have nothing in common with liberals of today.

I have heard people make this claim

 

lets see who agrees

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the slave-girl probably liked it, though.

 

LOL! She was asking for it! Every guy knows that "no" means "yes"!

 

Wonder what would have happened if, just forget even if it was a case of slave love, if the slave girl had said, "No!", and kicked him in the crotch? Wonder what Mr. Jefferson, this bastion of inalienable human rights, would have done or had done to her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not in the terms that liberals are today. You really can't say yes or no to your poll because it doesn't apply to the term today. Your poll needs to be amended.

 

You look at their ideas about goverment and they have nothing in common with liberals of today.

I have heard people make this claim

 

lets see who agrees

 

So you just want to see who is dumb enough to say yes. I gotcha. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

LOL! She was asking for it! Every guy knows that "no" means "yes"!

 

 

who ever said she said "no" in the 1st place? i guarantee she didn't say no. if i owned slaves? i'd buy the prettiest ones.

sometimes now i try to go out and buy the prettiest lawnmower, but sticking my dick in a lawnmower is really no fun at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the slave-girl probably liked it, though. to carry and birth the master's child would give her a superior status amongst the slave class.

jefferson didn't rape or harass a pretty colored girl. he gave her what she wanted. it was more an act of charity than anything, on his part.

Yes, and plus he was keeping it in the family because Sally Hemmings was his wife's half sister. So...that meant that Sally's kids were cousins and half siblings to Jefferson's White kids. That's complicated huh? ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not in the terms that liberals are today. You really can't say yes or no to your poll because it doesn't apply to the term today. Your poll needs to be amended.

 

You look at their ideas about goverment and they have nothing in common with liberals of today.

I have heard people make this claim

 

lets see who agrees

 

So you just want to see who is dumb enough to say yes. I gotcha. ;)

 

 

at this time there are 2 yes votes but I dont see a yes comment...

 

hmm..

undercover pcs lib ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and plus he was keeping it in the family because Sally Hemmings was his wife's half sister. So...that meant that Sally's kids were cousins and half siblings to Jefferson's White kids. That's complicated huh? ^_^

 

Good point! Now that we've ruled for the Sodomites, if we can just get incest rights into the plus column, you can check Jefferson on that liberal list! You can hardy have a mixed race family and be conservative, the other white meat.

 

Remember, the family that slaves together lays together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were classical liberals. They wanted more freedom. Say what you want about them but the constitution was almost perfect. I even believe the 3/5 issue was amazing for the time period. I feel they purposely left the door open to end slavery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were classical liberals. They wanted more freedom. Say what you want about them but the constitution was almost perfect. I even believe the 3/5 issue was amazing for the time period. I feel they purposely left the door open to end slavery

 

This is what you'd like to believe, but not the case. Just like Britain, the leaders were rich land owners and their economic interests superseded morality. Had they really believed in freedom and God given rights to all human beings, there would have been no 3/5, in the first place. You have to also remember that, for what slaves went through, anybody moral, if they even believed this 3/5 crap, would not have agreed to continue such an egregious, ungodly moral breach as the horror that was slavery, in so many ways.

 

Stop rewriting history. They were, hands down, unChristian and hypocrites in this way, more into having mansions, lots of land and free labor, than practicing what they preached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is what you'd like to believe, but not the case. Just like Britain, the leaders were rich land owners and their economic interests superseded morality. Had they really believed in freedom and God given rights to all human beings, there would have been no 3/5, in the first place. You have to also remember that, for what slaves went through, anybody moral, if they even believed this 3/5 crap, would not have agreed to continue such an egregious, ungodly moral breach as the horror that was slavery, in so many ways.

 

Stop rewriting history. They were, hands down, unChristian and hypocrites in this way, more into having mansions, lots of land and free labor, than practicing what they preached.

lol. slavery always has been and always will be. the only difference between slavery then and slavery now, is the master hands the slave a few

green bills to "purchase" his own slave quarter, food, etc. really? it's worse now. now? we're all slaves, voluntarily. before? it was only those who

were captured and sold through african tribal warfare politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quoted

 

The first legal SLAVE owner in America was BLACK!

 

"Antonio a Negro" was among the very first Angola-African people to arrive in America. He came by boat on "The James" to Virginia in 1619, with other blacks and whites, as an indentured servant.

 

Indentured servant- A person who signs and is bound by indentures to work for another for a specified time especially in return for payment of travel expenses and maintenance.

 

For nearly 12 years he worked on a plantation for the Bennetts, a wealthy white family. The Bennetts owned Antonio, but allowed him to farm a small plot of land for himself, in addition to the work he did on the Bennett plantation. There he grew tobacco and corn. He was also able to own several head of cattle while still a slave.

 

Antonio married a black woman named Mary and had four children. Antonio was praised for his hard work and good service, and he eventually became free. One of the first things he did was change his name to Anthony Johnson. Most servants did not have last names, or else they used the name of their master. By creating a new name for himself, Anthony Johnson was announcing that he was no longer an indentured servant.

 

Anthony Johnson worked hard to become a landowner, acquiring a patent for 250 acres of land. He eventually made enough money to buy an African slave of his own, John Casor.

 

Casor had also been imported as an indentured servant and attempted to transfer his remaining time of service to Robert Parker, a white colonist. However, Anthony Johnson brought suit in Northampton County court against Robert Parker in 1654 for detaining his servant, saying "hee had ye Negro for his life". In the case of Johnson vs Parker, the court of Northampton County upheld Johnson's right to hold Casor as a slave, saying:

 

"Seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master… It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit."

 

In other words, the court gave judicial sanction to the right of Negroes to own slaves of their own race. Indeed no earlier record has been found of judicial support given to slavery in Virginia except as a punishment for crime.

 

The defendant, John Casor, thus became the first individual known to be declared a "slave" in what later became the United States.

 

And there you have it, folks. Before this court case, there was no such thing as a "slave". There were only indentured servants. Therefore, The first legal SLAVE owner in America was BLACK!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. slavery always has been and always will be. the only difference between slavery then and slavery now, is the master hands the slave a few

green bills to "purchase" his own slave quarter, food, etc. really? it's worse now. now? we're all slaves, voluntarily. before? it was only those who

were captured and sold through african tribal warfare politics.

 

You've got a point, though kidnapping, stuffing into the hold, a death chamber, of a ship, etc, rises to quite an entirely different level of evil, my point that these founders equated to gods in American mythology actually had some real credibility issues, if the concept of freedom really means an egalitarian value of human worth and rights God grants: you can't have one foot in hell and the other in the choir, and have any moral, or simply intellectual, integrity. And, please, get off it! There would have been no rounding-up in Africa, if there wasn't a market in cracker land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You've got a point, though kidnapping, stuffing into the hold, a death chamber, of a ship, etc, rises to quite an entirely different level of evil, my point that these founders equated to gods in American mythology actually had some real credibility issues, if the concept of freedom really means an egalitarian value of human worth and rights God grants: you can't have one foot in hell and the other in the choir, and have any moral, or simply intellectual, integrity. And, please, get off it! There would have been no rounding-up in Africa, if there wasn't a market in cracker land.

no. they would have just killed them. it was a warfare tactic to either kill or capture. so if the "crackers", as you call them wouldn't have been buying?

they would have been slaughtered wholesale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no. they would have just killed them. it was a warfare tactic to either kill or capture. so if the "crackers", as you call them wouldn't have been buying?

they would have been slaughtered wholesale.

 

I don't know how much related to warfare, but not much: there were professionals, often Muslims, who rounded up slaves, simply for profit, working for whitey, who couldn't move around easily inland and was afraid to leave the ships/ports, in the first place. That aside, you're arguing, if what you're saying even had merit, which it doesn't, that, therefore, two wrongs make a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...