[late]

I will start you off with two primary sources. The first is a book entitled Time on the Cross - the Economics of American Negro Slavery (and its accompanying supplemental Volume Time on the Cross subtitled Evidence and Methods). It was written by Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, both university professors. Another book I can refer you to is They Were White and They Were Slaves - The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America by Michael A. Hoffman.

If you become serious, start there and I will be more than glad to keep adding to the mountains of evidence that debunks most of the multicultural cow manure being spread by advocates of the NEW WORLD ORDER. The key is putting perspective to history and accepting reality.

Good, bad, or indifferent society chooses slavery. Consider that most Americans accept the income tax knowing full well that it is illegal, immoral, indefensible, reprehensible, unconstitutional, AND it was a plank out of the Communist Manifesto illegally put into our own Constitution. It enslaves the people, but the masses choose to honor it as if it were the word of God. Show an American a Bible and they will laugh at you. Show them an IRS agent, and they will tremble in their boots.

Americans get too hung up on brooding over American slavery and if you challenge the institution of slavery, you will be accused of "racism." It is acceptable in every country on the globe except the United States. Yet the fact is, the United States never legalized slavery; they were not the biggest importer of slaves; slaves in the United States were treated better than any other country that enslaved Black people. Yet, the United States is the ONLY country being pursued over a policy that has been illegal in the United States for 156 years. The states were the first in modern history with half of the states outlawing slavery BEFORE the Constitution was ratified.

As a purely legal issue, it would be unconstitutional for Black people to seek reparations from white people on the basis of their skin. It would equally be unconstitutional to hold the federal government accountable for a practice that they did not legalize, but rather phased out at the ratification of the Constitution. It would be ridiculous to bring suit against the individual states since over half of them made the practice illegal before the ratification of the Constitution. Never do the liberals who harp on the subject talk about going after the line of families and corporations that owned the slave ships and benefit off the slaves. Blacks don't want to hold their own brethren accountable for selling them. The leadership of Black leaders only seeks to punish the Whites on a false presupposition. And we want to sweep the enslavement of the Irish under the rug as if it never happened.

In the 1650s the Irish were being enslaved by the thousands (over a hundred thousand) by the same people engaged in enslaving and importing Blacks to America, yet nobody is mad at the fallen super-power that made that a legal enterprise. The facts are, Irish were enslaved in the colonies; they were shipped to the West Indies, Jamaica and Barbados by the same slavers that brought Blacks to the colonies. In early America, Blacks and Cherokee Indians owned Irish slaves. Modernists don't want to admit that Blacks weren't the first nor were they treated the worse. You should check out the aforementioned books, learn the rest of the story and look up the cited laws, statistics, etc. Then, maybe, you will agree that it is time to look forward, not backward.

"Michael Anthony Hoffman II (born January 2, 1957)[1] is an American author. He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist[1][2] and by the Anti-Defamation League (among other sources), as a Holocaust denier and antisemite"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II

They were not slaves...

Time on the Cross is different. As luck would have it, I've read British and a translated German historian on why slavery ended. That was my first experience of how diverse historical interpretation can be. I am going to provide a link to a review by economic historians about Time on the Cross. But the substantive parts are not the issue here. The review is just to set the context of how historians see the work. Slavery may have been profitable, but it was also a great wrong, and a complete betrayal of the principles on which the country was founded.
https://eh.net/book_reviews/time-on-the-cross-the-economics-of-american-negro-slavery/

I am not a fan of reparations, but I doubt they are unconstitutional, they have withstood legal challenges before...

What I do advocate is good policy. Which, at heart, is simple. Good schools, adequate social services, access to basic health care for everyone. And the right to vote, of course.

[The Resister]

[quote="late"]"Michael Anthony Hoffman II (born January 2, 1957)[1] is an American author. He has been described by critics as a conspiracy theorist[1][2] and by the Anti-Defamation League (among other sources), as a Holocaust denier and antisemite"
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Hoffman_II[/url]

They were not slaves...

Time on the Cross is different. As luck would have it, I've read British and a translated German historian on why slavery ended. That was my first experience of how diverse historical interpretation can be. I am going to provide a link to a review by economic historians about Time on the Cross. But the substantive parts are not the issue here. The review is just to set the context of how historians see the work. Slavery may have been profitable, but it was also a great wrong, and a complete betrayal of the principles on which the country was founded.
[url]https://eh.net/book_reviews/time-on-the-cross-the-economics-of-american-negro-slavery/[/url]

I am not a fan of reparations, but I doubt they are unconstitutional, they have withstood legal challenges before...

What I do advocate is good policy. Which, at heart, is simple. Good schools, adequate social services, access to basic health care for everyone. And the right to vote, of course.[/quote]

You're trying to use the ADL to discredit Hoffman? OMG. What a joke! Try reading the book. It [b]factually [/b]refutes your position on Irish slavery by reproducing the actual statutes. The ADL is itself a hate group. Their objective is to censor honest discourse and control speech:

http://bostonreview.net/politics/emmaia ... t-it-seems

As per your review, it is childish and inane. Fogel and Engerman had an entire BOOK (Volume 2) to list their sources and discuss how they arrived at their conclusions. Anybody that challenges that first book must refute the entire second volume, statistic by statistic; fact by fact; record by record; statute by statute. You want people to buy into your B.S. but, you don't want a serious discussion about the subject. As I keep saying, if you just keep accusing people of [i]racism[/i], the discussion stops. If you want to prevail in an argument, you cannot look for people to accuse a semite of being anti-semitic; you need to read Hoffman's book and see if you can refute it based upon what you know rather than what one hate group with an agenda has to say.

If you read the books I've read and seen the evidence (including pictures) you would be appalled by your own words - IF you had an ounce of humanity within you. To trivialize what happened to the Irish (in this case) is no different than what the ADL accuses others of doing. If one cannot challenge the stories of the holocaust, then [b]NOBODY [/b]should be able to deny and trivialize the plight of the Irish.

As per the balance of your post, there is no "[i]right[/i]" to vote. Voting comes by way of privileges. Government grants those. Governments gets to decide who gets to vote and who doesn't. Everything else you've mentioned is the law in the United States and if anyone has any extra privilege, it is non-Whites. And I'd like to show one example of how that works:

If anyone attacks a Black person on account of race, it is front page news. When a young mother wearing a t shirt saying All Lives Matter is murdered by liberal democrat thugs, the story almost never made it out of the county she lived in.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ ... story.html

I find the dual standards to be unfair, appalling, and inhumane. The way you trivialize what happened to the Irish is, in my opinion, no less racist postulate than how neo nazis approach the subject relative to the Jews. Dual standards - the meat and potatoes of "[i]democracy[/i]."

[late]

As per your review, it is childish and inane. Fogel and Engerman had an entire BOOK (Volume 2) to list their sources and discuss how they arrived at their conclusions. Anybody that challenges that first book must refute the entire second volume, statistic by statistic; fact by fact; record by record; statute by statute.

As the review points out, separating the wheat from the chaff is what historians did.

Calling economic historians childish... not smart.

To anyone else that wants more, read the review. It is balanced, and more than fair in it's treatment of Fogel and Engerman...

[QatzelOk]

...a myth that originates with nasty people with transparently evil motives... not "someone nasty has this opinion, so we must have a different one".

This is the same concept described in two different voices. You are saying that if you call someone "nasty," all of their ideas can be written off. Which is fascism.

Indentured servants were not legally considered sub-human property. Black slaves were. ants.

For the indentured servants, being killed off before they could claim their promised property... was in no way made more bearable by knowing that a piece of paper somewhere gave them a superior status than some other victim of colonial atrocities - more status in piece-of-paperland, at least.

"I am dying, but at least IT IS WRITTEN that I have more status than another victim of the Empire..... uhgh...." says the gloating Irish non-slave as his eyes close and his pulse stops for the last time.

These pieces of paper with words written on them are ONLY important in making apologists for colonial atrocities feel better about their nation's past. Every treaty signed with First Nations, for example, was broken as soon as it was expedient for the British-Americans to do so.

Paper and words.... don't change people's lives. Human rights and equality do.

[The Resister]

As the review points out, separating the wheat from the chaff is what historians did.

Calling economic historians childish... not smart.

To anyone else that wants more, read the review. It is balanced, and more than fair in it's treatment of Fogel and Engerman...

Reading a review in order to avoid reading the book when the poster challenged me is still childish. If you want the facts, by all means avail yourself of ALL of the available information, not just that which supports your position. How would anyone know if the review is fair, balanced, or accurate without reading the book?

Furthermore, with Hoffman's book, when Canaanites accuse a semite of being anti-semitic, you know something stinks worse than a sewer. This is especially true when Hoffman cites the statutes and other historical documents along with pictures to support his claim.

[Heisenberg]

This is the same concept described in two different voices. You are saying that if you call someone "nasty," all of their ideas can be written off. Which is fascism.

Yes, it is "fascism" to point out that bad faith arguments made by white supremacists are bad faith arguments made by white supremacists. A true galaxy brain take if I ever saw one.

"I am dying, but at least IT IS WRITTEN that I have more status than another victim of the Empire..... uhgh...." says the gloating Irish non-slave as his eyes close and his pulse stops for the last time.

While this is a caricature, it is, in a sense, what happened. The cross-racial solidarity you highlighted in Bacon's Rebellion basically ended as a major force once race-based slavery was consolidated. It was a classic case of divide and rule.

[late]

Reading a review in order to avoid reading the book when the poster challenged me is still childish.

There are hundreds of thousands of books, too many. Actual fact checking would require the library of a major university. That would be Boston, nearly a hundred miles away, and it would involve a week to a month of long days..

I am also reading 2 excellent histories already.

Also, I have no problem with that review. An economic historian is not going to pass judgement, but then I'm not an economic historian.

Large losses of life were common when they were shipped here. The mortality rate was quite high after they got here. Frankly, the authors are sugar coating the situation (value judgements are not in their job description). Slavery is a great evil.

One of the things the reviewer pointed out is that it was a nightmare to fact check. Sorry, kiddo, I have a life. It's not much, but I have far better uses for my time.

Btw, one of the works I am reading is the pulitzer winning What Hath God Wrought. Another work, which has a lot of history in it, is The Rise and Fall of American Growth.

Both are surprisingly good.

Also btw, I like economic history, one of my favorites is Braudel's Civilisation and Capitalism, 15th to 18th century. Let me warn you, it's 3 volumes and over a thousand pages.

[The Resister]

There are hundreds of thousands of books, too many. Actual fact checking would require the library of a major university. That would be Boston, nearly a hundred miles away, and it would involve a week to a month of long days..

I am also reading 2 excellent histories already.

Also, I have no problem with that review. An economic historian is not going to pass judgement, but then I'm not an economic historian.

Large losses of life were common when they were shipped here. The mortality rate was quite high after they got here. Frankly, the authors are sugar coating the situation (value judgements are not in their job description). Slavery is a great evil.

One of the things the reviewer pointed out is that it was a nightmare to fact check. Sorry, kiddo, I have a life. It's not much, but I have far better uses for my time.

Btw, one of the works I am reading is the pulitzer winning What Hath God Wrought. Another work, which has a lot of history in it, is The Rise and Fall of American Growth.

Both are surprisingly good.

Also btw, I like economic history, one of my favorites is Braudel's Civilisation and Capitalism, 15th to 18th century. Let me warn you, it's 3 volumes and over a thousand pages.

I would say that if you don't want to read a book, especially one that authoritative, you're probably not serious about the subject matter. My take on it can be found at in Proverbs 18 : 13 which reads:
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

You seem to mix the alleged morality of slavery with the economics of slavery. My only point was to show that inhumane treatment of slaves was not as prevalent or as bad as many allege simply due to the economics of having paid a high price for a slave that one would want to get a lot of work out of.

I am neither pro-slavery or anti-slavery as a political issue. It was and I cannot change the past. IF it were immoral, I'm confused. Abraham owned slaves; God didn't condemn him; Joseph was sold into slavery; God not only allowed that to happen, but never went after those that enslaved him over that issue. In the New Testament, the Bible reads:

"There is neither Judean nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3: 28

Granted, later on, Israelites were admonished to not become entangled with a yoke of slavery (Galatians 5: 1), but I haven't found a place where (morally speaking it is wrong). I'm not defending it. Whether you take advantage of less fortunate people and take them by their consent and call it indentured servitude or you make statutory slaves out of a man by taxing his labor (i.e. the income tax) slavery is slavery. Thomas Jefferson observed that:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,(sic) and government to gain ground."

People bring slavery upon themselves and vote for it. Why else do over half of Americans vote for Democrats? And, if you're going to condemn slavery, you have to condemn it across the board, not marginalize it with semantics. Otherwise it becomes a slap in the face of those who were forced into bondage to avoid starvation. It's the same when I talk about the Black leadership. Why not want revenge against the people that sold you into slavery in the first place? And, what exactly, caused some Black people to hunt down their own brethren and sell them in the first place?

Why give the slavers a free pass, AND even support them? Do you think Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, or Michael Bloomberg actually DID anything that was worth BILLIONS of dollars in and of itself? Don't you think if you followed the money trail of slave profits, you would find that many millionaires and billionaires can trace their wealth back to slavery?

while we're arguing about it back and forth, you could read the suggested books and we could discuss the issue from an even and level playing field.

[late]

I would say that if you don't want to read a book, especially one that authoritative, you're probably not serious about the subject matter.

Thanks for the laugh.

One my my profs did her PHD on slavery.

"People bring slavery upon themselves and vote for it. Why else do over half of Americans vote for Democrats?"

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=PRICE+OF+INEQUALITY&qid=1623180522&sr=8-2

[The Resister]

Thanks for the laugh.

One my my profs did her PHD on slavery.

"People bring slavery upon themselves and vote for it. Why else do over half of Americans vote for Democrats?"

https://www.amazon.com/Price-Inequality-Divided-Society-Endangers/dp/0393345068/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=PRICE+OF+INEQUALITY&qid=1623180522&sr=8-2

You didn't do your "PHD" on slavery. I have been invited on more than one occasion to talk about slavery at the local historical society in the county where I live. The retired historian who held the office of county historian and I were close friends for half a century. I grew up knowing a man that became a historian, but still relied on me for a different view on slavery and the history of changing values. Have your "friend" post here. Maybe we can have a lively and informed discussion of the issue.

[Potemkin]

You didn't do your "PHD" on slavery. I have been invited on more than one occasion to talk about slavery at the local historical society in the county where I live. The retired historian who held the office of county historian and I were close friends for half a century. I grew up knowing a man that became a historian, but still relied on me for a different view on slavery and the history of changing values. Have your "friend" post here. Maybe we can have a lively and informed discussion of the issue.

You are on record as regarding even income tax as a form of 'slavery'. You have expanded the definition of the word so that it no longer has any historical or social meaning.

[late]

You didn't do your "PHD" on slavery.

Nope, but I learned a lot from her, apparently you didn't do your phd on slavery, either.

Whatta coincidence...

You don't discuss history the way historians do. Maybe that's because this is about Right wing agendas more than history.

[Red_Army]

I didn't do my PHD on slavery and yet still I know that it's evil. I guess that's smarts for ya

[The Resister]

You are on record as regarding even income tax as a form of 'slavery'. You have expanded the definition of the word so that it no longer has any historical or social meaning.

I don't know how I expanded the historical or social meaning of the word. Obviously you should watch the Mel Gibson flick Braveheart. Controlling people through taxes IS a form of slavery and when you take from a man his means of livelihood by stealing part of his compensation for working, you take away his incentive to produce.

[Potemkin]

I don't know how I expanded the historical or social meaning of the word. Obviously you should watch the Mel Gibson flick Braveheart. Controlling people through taxes IS a form of slavery and when you take from a man his means of livelihood by stealing part of his compensation for working, you take away his incentive to produce.

You tell 'em, @The Resister!

[Heisenberg]

Imagine telling @Potemkin that he needs to watch Braveheart, as if he can't recite the film from memory already. Whatever next? "You should try Irn Bru and deep fried pizza"?

[late]

Controlling people through taxes IS a form of slavery...

That's batshit crazy.

[The Resister]

Nope, but I learned a lot from her, apparently you didn't do your phd on slavery, either.

Whatta coincidence...

You don't discuss history the way historians do. Maybe that's because this is about Right wing agendas more than history.

Somewhere you lost your way. We are not talking about my experience; you interjected yours. I laid my cards on the table in the form of two primary sources for this HISTORICAL discussion. I introduced two history books, written by people experienced and knowledgeable about the subject. Instead of focusing on the facts of the topic, we are seeing posters attack the historians with the condemnation of other hate groups.

We can ALWAYS find people to say bad things about someone else. You have no problem questioning my motives. You can spew bad shit about me all day long. The problem you have is twofold: the criticisms are irrelevant to the subject at hand AND if you have to go off topic to attack me, it signals a fundamental weakness in YOUR argument. If you have to attack my sources with the words of hate mongers with a political agenda AND refuse to read the material that I was challenged to produce, then this is NOT an honest discourse, but rather you fighting out of fear and ignorance. Since you cannot counter the findings of my primary sources, you think taking cheap shots will change the direction of this discussion.

My political agenda is well known here. I believe in unalienable Rights. My forefathers fought a war to secure those Rights and proceeded to build a constitutional Republic unlike any other that existed. I'm not sure how that agenda has any bearing on this topic. I'm sure you will make something up, however.

Slavery has been a fact of life throughout recorded history. We can play semantics; we can try to play these smoke and mirror games; we can deny the truths I've put on the table. The Irish were the first slaves in the United States. Of this there can be no question. The inhumane conditions by which they lived serve to be a reminder that nobody has suffered any more or any less under slavery. You condemn me for wanting to acknowledge that man is born with unalienable Rights. THAT is your issue with me. IF man does, indeed, have unalienable Rights, then slavery cannot exist. Period. Still you prefer to attack me. The reality is, you believe in slavery. You simply need a scapegoat and a pretext to justify your reasons to want to hold other people in a state of bondage. Only one of us believes that man is born with the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness and it isn't you.

Now, you could read my primary sources OR I could quote from them and eventually from other sources if you want to discuss the OP. The alternative is you can continue to wage this personal whizzing contest and the more you try to deflect, the more it helps me. You see, unlike you, I do not think that change comes by way of the masses. I think that maybe one or two people will stumble across this thread, access the materials I relied on and reach their own conclusions. The majority of people will band together to "prove" their case via mob rule. If they cannot beat a man down with numbers, they will have him censored. He can be banished. But the truth cannot be denied and there will always be those who hunger after the truth - no matter how determined you are NOT to acknowledge it and to accept it.

The White race did not invent slavery. Whites were not even the most prolific numbers of slave owners. Whites were slaves. There were times when White children were "kid nabbed" from the streets and put on ships bound for the New World. The men who ratified the Constitution of the United States did not legalize slavery. If such could be shown, you would show us where, in the Constitution, it was included. You can't. By the time the Constitution was being ratified over half the states had already outlawed slavery AND the Constitution was used to begin phasing out slavery. That IS in the Constitution. The men who owned slaves did so because that was the way of doing business. I don't believe in unconstitutional taxes, but I am forced to pay them.

Slave owners could not simply set their slaves free. It would have been illegal since they were "property" and were pledged against the debts just as real estate is pledged when you borrow from the bank. Furthermore, to simply put slaves on the road because you don't believe in slavery would have been irresponsible and inhumane. It would be no different than having an animal born in your house and kept there, even declawed and neutered only to throw it out in the middle of the woods and expect it to fend for itself. Adding insult to injury, if someone had just opened the door and told their slaves to scram, the slaves would have to become criminals in order to survive. What you expected of the founders and framers was unrealistic and impossible.

You should be ashamed of your arguments. Having to stoop down to knowingly LIE about my agenda is reprehensible. As any serious researcher knows, the right wing kicked me to the curb the day I came out against them denying undocumented foreigners unalienable Rights by calling them "illegal aliens" absent due process. When I said an employer owns the job he / she creates and the employer decides who gets the job, the right broke ties with me. They don't really believe in free enterprise. Like the left, they believe you must be born in the United States, have a birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number," National ID Card; be background checked, submit to DNA testing, and do the whole hair sample, blood test, pee test, and have your driver's license along with other government issued documentation in order to qualify for unalienable Rights. I believe in the Right of Association (hire an all White staff if you want) and I support the Right of employers to hire an all foreign staff since the employer owns the job. If you have the Right of Association, you can buy from either and let the free market determine the morality of the people.

All of this is irrelevant to the OP; however, if you want to throw it out there, let's do so and then get back to the subject at hand. Now, if you are through with the personal attacks, I expect your next post to have something to do with the OP. Otherwise you are wasting bandwidth and proving that you are uneducated, uninformed, and at best projecting since you have no counter facts to refute the truth. Whites were slaves too.

[late]

Somewhere you lost your way.

We are not talking about my experience; you interjected yours. I laid my cards on the table in the form of two primary sources for this HISTORICAL discussion. I introduced two history books, written by people experienced and knowledgeable about the subject. Instead of focusing on the facts of the topic, we are seeing posters attack the historians with the condemnation of other hate groups.

We can ALWAYS find people to say bad things about someone else. You have no problem questioning my motives. You can spew bad shit about me all day long. The problem you have is twofold: the criticisms are irrelevant to the subject at hand AND if you have to go off topic to attack me, it signals a fundamental weakness in YOUR argument. If you have to attack my sources with the words of hate mongers with a political agenda AND refuse to read the material that I was challenged to produce, then this is NOT an honest discourse, but rather you fighting out of fear and ignorance. Since you cannot counter the findings of my primary sources, you think taking cheap shots will change the direction of this discussion.

My political agenda is well known here. I believe in unalienable Rights. My forefathers fought a war to secure those Rights and proceeded to build a constitutional Republic unlike any other that existed. I'm not sure how that agenda has any bearing on this topic. I'm sure you will make something up, however.

Slavery has been a fact of life throughout recorded history. We can play semantics; we can try to play these smoke and mirror games; we can deny the truths I've put on the table. The Irish were the first slaves in the United States. Of this there can be no question. The inhumane conditions by which they lived serve to be a reminder that nobody has suffered any more or any less under slavery. You condemn me for wanting to acknowledge that man is born with unalienable Rights. THAT is your issue with me. IF man does, indeed, have unalienable Rights, then slavery cannot exist. Period. Still you prefer to attack me. The reality is, you believe in slavery. You simply need a scapegoat and a pretext to justify your reasons to want to hold other people in a state of bondage. Only one of us believes that man is born with the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness and it isn't you.

Now, you could read my primary sources OR I could quote from them and eventually from other sources if you want to discuss the OP. The alternative is you can continue to wage this personal whizzing contest and the more you try to deflect, the more it helps me. You see, unlike you, I do not think that change comes by way of the masses. I think that maybe one or two people will stumble across this thread, access the materials I relied on and reach their own conclusions. The majority of people will band together to "prove" their case via mob rule. If they cannot beat a man down with numbers, they will have him censored. He can be banished. But the truth cannot be denied and there will always be those who hunger after the truth - no matter how determined you are NOT to acknowledge it and to accept it.

The White race did not invent slavery. Whites were not even the most prolific numbers of slave owners. Whites were slaves. There were times when White children were "kid nabbed" from the streets and put on ships bound for the New World. The men who ratified the Constitution of the United States did not legalize slavery. If such could be shown, you would show us where, in the Constitution, it was included. You can't. By the time the Constitution was being ratified over half the states had already outlawed slavery AND the Constitution was used to begin phasing out slavery. That IS in the Constitution. The men who owned slaves did so because that was the way of doing business. I don't believe in unconstitutional taxes, but I am forced to pay them.

Slave owners could not simply set their slaves free. It would have been illegal since they were "property" and were pledged against the debts just as real estate is pledged when you borrow from the bank. Furthermore, to simply put slaves on the road because you don't believe in slavery would have been irresponsible and inhumane. It would be no different than having an animal born in your house and kept there, even declawed and neutered only to throw it out in the middle of the woods and expect it to fend for itself. Adding insult to injury, if someone had just opened the door and told their slaves to scram, the slaves would have to become criminals in order to survive. What you expected of the founders and framers was unrealistic and impossible.

You should be ashamed of your arguments. Having to stoop down to knowingly LIE about my agenda is reprehensible. As any serious researcher knows, the right wing kicked me to the curb the day I came out against them denying undocumented foreigners unalienable Rights by calling them "illegal aliens" absent due process. When I said an employer owns the job he / she creates and the employer decides who gets the job, the right broke ties with me. They don't really believe in free enterprise. Like the left, they believe you must be born in the United States, have a birth certificate, Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number," National ID Card; be background checked, submit to DNA testing, and do the whole hair sample, blood test, pee test, and have your driver's license along with other government issued documentation in order to qualify for unalienable Rights. I believe in the Right of Association (hire an all White staff if you want) and I support the Right of employers to hire an all foreign staff since the employer owns the job. If you have the Right of Association, you can buy from either and let the free market determine the morality of the people.

All of this is irrelevant to the OP; however, if you want to throw it out there, let's do so and then get back to the subject at hand. Now, if you are through with the personal attacks, I expect your next post to have something to do with the OP. Otherwise you are wasting bandwidth and proving that you are uneducated, uninformed, and at best projecting since you have no counter facts to refute the truth. Whites were slaves too.

Project much? For me, a book about all the ways your writing is screwed up would write itself. There is no political philosophy called Libertarianism. It's a fantasy, and the first two chapters would be about why. The first would be how the Modern World only works when you have a strong central government holding things together. That wasn't a choice, they had to..

You are treating your sources like they were written in stone. They weren't, and your inability to respond substantively to comments is quite revealing. There are rules to history writing, I am not seeing you play by the rules..

Yes, slavery is ancient.


But if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers, they were quite aware of the contradiction inherent in a country founded on Enlightenment ideas about freedom and rights, while they allowed slavery.

Lastly, you have bought into the crazy idea that taxes are slavery. A Supreme Court justice was known to whistle every year when he went to put his tax returns in the mail. A clerk asked him why. "Today is the day I buy civilization."

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-fact ... SKBN23O2BS

Shared thousands of times on Facebook, a meme showing a black-and-white photograph of three white children in ragged clothing claims that “the first slaves imported into the American colonies were 100 White children in 1619, four months before the arrival of the first shipment of Black slaves.” This claim is false.

....

The claim that the first slaves to arrive in the American colonies were white children is false. The Africans who were taken to the colony of Virginia in 1619 had been captured in Angola ( here ). In the summer of 1619, two English ships attacked a Portuguese ship carrying 350 African captives, taking 50-60 Africans with them to Virginia. The first British ship arrived with 20 enslaved Africans, making them the first to arrive in the American colonies and inspiring the New York Times’ 1619 Project ( here , here ).

A timeline of Virginia records provided by the Library of Congress does not mention the arrival of a shipment of “100 White children” from Ireland at any point between 1600 and 1743 (here).

....

The article has links to the evidence.