[wat0n]

No, it mobilised in a failed attempt to scare the governor into not grabbing a bunch of gunpowder. Instead, the governor simply ended up paying for it and all conflict was averted.

It is called the gunpowder incident if you want to look it up.

...And it shows the tensions and mistrust between both sides had with regards to each other's intentions that some Virginians even mobilized a militia to push back against the governor's actions.

Yes, you like your loaded questions.

It's not loaded when you are trying to push for the initial narrative by Nikole Harris-Jones about the relative importance of slavery. Wilentz himself also drew the distinction between claiming defending slavery was a primary cause of the American Revolution and saying it was an important cause for some.

[Pants-of-dog]

...And it shows the tensions and mistrust between both sides had with regards to each other's intentions that some Virginians even mobilized a militia to push back against the governor's actions.

Yes, like the tension and mistrust about abolition of slavery.

It's not loaded when you are trying to push for the initial narrative by Nikole Harris-Jones about the relative importance of slavery. Wilentz himself also drew the distinction between claiming defending slavery was a primary cause of the American Revolution and saying it was an important cause for some.

I lost track of whatever moral failing you are accusing me of. I will get back to the topic instead.

For Jefferson, who owned slaves and mentioned British forces riling up the slaves for revolt in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, it was probably an important reason. His personal wealth depended almost exclusively on his ownership of slaves, so that indicates that preserving slavery was an important reason for him.

[wat0n]

Yes, like the tension and mistrust about abolition of slavery.

Even before Dunmore even brought it up as a topic by issuing his proclamation?

I lost track of whatever moral failing you are accusing me of. I will get back to the topic instead.

For Jefferson, who owned slaves and mentioned British forces riling up the slaves for revolt in an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, it was probably an important reason. His personal wealth depended almost exclusively on his ownership of slaves, so that indicates that preserving slavery was an important reason for him.

Can you cite any of his writings suggesting this?

[Pants-of-dog]

Even before Dunmore even brought it up as a topic by issuing his proclamation?

Sure. After all, we are just discussing vague feelings like mistrust.

Since we already agreed that the actual military conflicts did not start until a month after the threat of abolition, this seems like an odd fixation on an irrelevant point.

Can you cite any of his writings suggesting this?

His wealth being dependent on slavery does not require evidence from his own writings, but since there is lot of his own words talking about how rich he got exploiting slaves:
https://www.historynet.com/thomas-jeffe ... master.htm

[wat0n]

Sure. After all, we are just discussing vague feelings like mistrust.

Since we already agreed that the actual military conflicts did not start until a month after the threat of abolition, this seems like an odd fixation on an irrelevant point.

Again with the post hoc fallacy. Repeating your fallacies won't make them true.

Please provide evidence the mistrust between Virginians and Dunmore was a result of a threat of abolishing slavery by April 20, 1775.

His wealth being dependent on slavery does not require evidence from his own writings, but since there is lot of his own words talking about how rich he got exploiting slaves:
https://www.historynet.com/thomas-jeffe ... master.htm

But it does require proof to say Thomas Jefferson was a revolutionary due to his desire to protect his wealth from possible losses resulting from abolition of slavery, and even more so given the British did not have abolishing in the colonies on the table in the 1770s. Do you have a primary source to that effect?

Furthermore, explain why hasn't this angle been discussed by historians of the American Revolution if that's actually the case.

[Drlee]

@Drlee

Your posts implied that this censorship was justified to protect kids from the evil lies of CRT.

This implies that CRT was being taught to kids at some point.

We can now agree that this was never the case.

And since that is the case, we can also see that this is a solution for a problem that never existed.

Go back. Read the law. Rediscover what this thread is about. Then come back when you have solved your problem. It will keep you from making a fool of yourself again.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again with the post hoc fallacy. Repeating your fallacies won't make them true.

Actually m I already explained why it is not a fallacy. This was not the only reason for the southern states to fear abolition.

Would you like me to repeat myself?

Please provide evidence the mistrust between Virginians and Dunmore was a result of a threat of abolishing slavery by April 20, 1775.

I do not think I made that claim.

But it does require proof to say Thomas Jefferson was a revolutionary due to his desire to protect his wealth from possible losses resulting from abolition of slavery, and even more so given the British did not have abolishing in the colonies on the table in the 1770s. Do you have a primary source to that effect?

Furthermore, explain why hasn't this angle been discussed by historians of the American Revolution if that's actually the case.

Before we get to that, I would like to confirm that Jefferson, like other slaver revolutionaries, had a clear economic incentive to protect slavery, and the revolution did, in fact, do just that.

—————————

@Drlee

Since you are not denying or refuting any of my claims, the logical assumption is that you agree that this law is unnecessary, since secondary and elementary schools were not teaching CRT nor was there any plan to do so.

Since the actual reason was not to limit this imaginary topic in classrooms, what do you think the actual reason was?

[Drlee]

@Drlee

Since you are not denying or refuting any of my claims, the logical assumption is that you agree that this law is unnecessary, since secondary and elementary schools were not teaching CRT nor was there any plan to do so.

Since the actual reason was not to limit this imaginary topic in classrooms, what do you think the actual reason was?

Wrong. I suppose it is possible that you are unable to read the Florida Resolution or the title of this thread you are simply way off base.

First of all a legislature is not reactive it is proactive. Laws are to prevent. Even if there were no classes presently being taught (and I do not cede this point) it would be totally appropriate for the legislature to prevent them. Besides. You rely on the idea that no evidence is evidence. That is a logical fallacy.

Here is a quote from a Florida news article that seems to argue against you:

There is currently an effort to offer a class as an elective in the Palm Beach County School District entitled, Prejudice and Power for middle school students which appears to have tenants of CRT within it, however, it’s not been approved by the state.

CRT has been adopted by the California public school system, along with Buffalo, Chicago, and Washington D.C.’s school districts including it within its history education.

This article predated the adoption of the resolution. Clearly though Florida, seeing that this theory has been adopted and promulgated in other states and school districts, (as well as over 200 colleges and universities) was quite correct in getting out in front of the issue. So you were simply wrong on both of your points particularly the one citing that there was "no plan" to teach CRT.

I seriously doubt you will admit your mistake. It is just not your style.

[wat0n]

Actually m I already explained why it is not a fallacy. This was not the only reason for the southern states to fear abolition.

Would you like me to repeat myself?

"Repeating your fallacies won't make them true" seems like a clear statement. You have yet to show there was a perception of a large risk of abolition of slavery in Virginia by April 20, 1775. Since historians who are specialized on the matter don't seem to agree with you, I assume you can cite a primary source to back this claim up.

I do not think I made that claim.

So why did both sides, Virginians and Dunmore, mistrust each other? Why did Virginians mobilize militias to stop Dunmore from taking over gunpowder right after the battles at Lexington and Concord?

Before we get to that, I would like to confirm that Jefferson, like other slaver revolutionaries, had a clear economic incentive to protect slavery, and the revolution did, in fact, do just that.

How did the revolution "in fact" do that? Even under your lunatic theory that somehow American Patriots like Jefferson were supposed to know the Industrial Revolution would change the world to the point that the British would abolish slavery by 1834, you are forgetting to mention that the British also compensated slaveowners (and the compensation was not small at all - the fund amounted to 5% of the Empire's GDP and 40% of the government's budget). This is also one reason why abolition in the UK was done peacefully, unlike how it went about in the US.

[Pants-of-dog]

"Repeating your fallacies won't make them true" seems like a clear statement. You have yet to show there was a perception of a large risk of abolition of slavery in Virginia by April 20, 1775. Since historians who are specialized on the matter don't seem to agree with you, I assume you can cite a primary source to back this claim up.

As long as we agree that no violence occurred until after Dunmore threatened abolition.

And we agree that Jefferson and other slavers had clear economic interests in preserving slavery and had control of the state apparatus in order to do so.

So why did both sides, Virginians and Dunmore, mistrust each other? Why did Virginians mobilize militias to stop Dunmore from taking over gunpowder right after the battles at Lexington and Concord?

Do these questions lead to an argument?

How did the revolution "in fact" do that?

Abolition occurred in 1834 in all British colonies. In the US, it was not until several decades later.

Therefore independence preserved slavery for several decades.

Even under your lunatic theory that somehow American Patriots like Jefferson were supposed to know the Industrial Revolution would change the world to the point that the British would abolish slavery by 1834,

Strawman.

You keep pretending I claimed they knew, despite the fact that i already explicitly said they worried about it.

you are forgetting to mention that the British also compensated slaveowners (and the compensation was not small at all - the fund amounted to 5% of the Empire's GDP and 40% of the government's budget). This is also one reason why abolition in the UK was done peacefully, unlike how it went about in the US.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

[wat0n]

As long as we agree that no violence occurred until after Dunmore threatened abolition.

And we agree that Jefferson and other slavers had clear economic interests in preserving slavery and had control of the state apparatus in order to do so.

I don't see your primary sources that would falsify the work of historians who have specialized on the American Revolution. Are you going to post them or you'll just repeat your already addressed fallacious claims?

Do these questions lead to an argument?

Will you answer them? You are the one who's claiming Dunmore's proclamation was why Virginia militias mobilized, despite the fact they had mobilized several months before it was ever issued. It falls on you to explain why they mobilized then. And yes, a standoff that does not end in a single shot fired is also an example of mobilization

Abolition occurred in 1834 in all British colonies. In the US, it was not until several decades later.

Therefore independence preserved slavery for several decades.

Even that is not quite true, as several of the thirteen colonies had abolished slavery before 1834. It would seem it hastened its demise in some places while in others it would be left to the Civil War to sort this problem out.

Strawman.

You keep pretending I claimed they knew, despite the fact that i already explicitly said they worried about it.

How can you worry about a phenomenon that had not even been properly identified and named in 1775?

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Check the link.

It's interesting to see you asking for evidence when it is you who is refusing to provide any that would falsify the research of historians who specialized in the American Revolution.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't see your primary sources that would falsify the work of historians who have specialized on the American Revolution. Are you going to post them or you'll just repeat your already addressed fallacious claims?

Since all you are doing is asking a question and bot refuting the claims, I assume you agree.

Will you answer them? You are the one who's claiming Dunmore's proclamation was why Virginia militias mobilized, despite the fact they had mobilized several months before it was ever issued. It falls on you to explain why they mobilized then. And yes, a standoff that does not end in a single shot fired is also an example of mobilization

Again, no violence occurred until a month after the proclamation. So this claim is inaccurate,

Even that is not quite true, as several of the thirteen colonies had abolished slavery before 1834. It would seem it hastened its demise in some places while in others it would be left to the Civil War to sort this problem out.

So you agree about the southern states since your only refutation involves a few northern states,

How can you worry about a phenomenon that had not even been properly identified and named in 1775?

Abolition was already being discussed then.

Even Jefferson wrote about it and gave it lip service.

Check the link.

It's interesting to see you asking for evidence when it is you who is refusing to provide any that would falsify the research of historians who specialized in the American Revolution.

This tangent is dismissed as unsupported.

[wat0n]

Since all you are doing is asking a question and bot refuting the claims, I assume you agree.

I already addressed all your claims, I'm waiting for you to back yours up with a primary source that will falsify the work of top historians on the matter of the American Revolution.

Again, no violence occurred until a month after the proclamation. So this claim is inaccurate,

Strawman, I mentioned mobilization and not just violence.

So you agree about the southern states since your only refutation involves a few northern states,

Still shows how misleading your affirmations are.

Abolition was already being discussed then.

Even Jefferson wrote about it and gave it lip service.

Please provide a primary source.

This tangent is dismissed as unsupported.

Nope, the source is right there for you to see. As before, your inability to provide primary sources to back your arguments up is noted.

[Pants-of-dog]

I already addressed all your claims, I'm waiting for you to back yours up with a primary source that will falsify the work of top historians on the matter of the American Revolution.

Strawman, I mentioned mobilization and not just violence.

Still shows how misleading your affirmations are.

Please provide a primary source.

Nope, the source is right there for you to see. As before, your inability to provide primary sources to back your arguments up is noted.

None of this is about CRT in Florida anymore, and instead is you arguing that any militia movement counts as a revolution.

—————————

Apparently the Florida sexual offender and Republican congressperson, Gaetz thinks CRT is causing the USA to lose wars.

Or more specifically, generals who are open minded enough to read about it are responsible for losing wars.

And this man cares about teens. His opinion on what they should be not taught is definitely worth listening to.

[wat0n]

None of this is about CRT in Florida anymore, and instead is you arguing that any militia movement counts as a revolution.

Textbook strawman again, and also underscores your inability to support your claims about the role of slavery in the American Revolution. It's no wonder then that CRT is facing pushback in Florida and elsewhere, since devices like the 1619 Project are clearly in contradiction with the facts.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Do you think the alleged sex offender is making a good criticism of CRT education in his home state?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Do you think the alleged sex offender is making a good criticism of CRT education in his home state?

Seems like a bad argument to me. Just as bad as your inability to sustain your claims, despite historians writing they are inaccurate, with primary sources.

[Pants-of-dog]

@wat0n

Yes, it is ridiculous.

Can you think of any good reason for the censorship?

[Drlee]

I see POD is back to his childish ignoring of my posts. I guess he realizes that he was wrong and feels be need not comment.

@Pants-of-dog

Can you think of any good reason for the censorship?

I have articulated several. Why would @wat0n repeat what has already been said?

[Pants-of-dog]

I see POD is back to his childish ignoring of my posts. I guess he realizes that he was wrong and feels be need not comment.

@Pants-of-dog



I have articulated several. Why would @wat0n repeat what has already been said?

Please repeat your reasons for supporting the censorship. Thanks.