The Truth About Madison and Slavery
By: JONATHAN TURLEY
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Below is my column in the Washington Times responding to the controversy over changes at the home of James Madison. While I have not been to Montpelier since the reported changes, I wanted to respond to the condemnation of Madison as "an enslaver." He was indeed an enslaver but the truth is far more complex than presented by critics.
Here is the column:
If there is one concept that captured the brilliant vision of President James Madison for government, it was his statement in Federalist 51: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." The use of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power was key to the stability of the constitutional system that he created. Indeed, his own home at Montpelier may now be an example of what happens when there is such a concentration of power and no check on its excess.
Recently, billionaire David M. Rubenstein gave $10 million to renovate and repair Montpelier. Mr. Rubenstein has given generously through the years to preserve historical documents and buildings. However, he has been accused of unleashing a newly formed, activist board on the property, which has transformed into what critics view as an ideological mission. It is a trend that we have seen at other historical sites, including the National Archives.
Last May, the National Trust for Historic Preservation reportedly pushed the board to accept a new slate of board members with a new agenda. Board member Mary Alexander, a descendant of Madison's slave Paul Jennings, objected that the new members set out to transform Montpelier into "a black history and black rights organization that could care less about James Madison and his legacy."
The exhibits now emphasize Madison "the enslaver," and visitors have complained that there is little comparative attention to his contributions to political theory and institutions.
Visitors are greeted with a sign saying that the estate "made Madison the philosopher, farmer, statesman, and enslaver that he was." Other exhibits discuss how every one of the nation's first 18 presidents benefited from slavery, including anti-slavery figures like John Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
As a Madisonian scholar and devotee, I have long discussed the contradiction of slavery and the views of the founders, including Madison. It is an important element to highlight for visitors to estates like Monticello and Montpelier. However, history is often more complex than simple condemnations and Montpelier is an example of how the true history of Madison and slavery can be lost to serve current political interests.
Some of the information at Montpelier appears to reflect the claims of the highly controversial 1619 Project led by former New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, which claimed that racism was the driving force behind the entire American political system. The claim has been challenged by academics and even one of the key fact-checkers at the Times. Historians objected that "matters of verifiable fact" that "cannot be described as interpretation or 'framing.'" They objected that the work represented "a displacement of historical understanding by ideology."
While the project has commendable elements, the view that the Revolution was primarily fought to further slavery is revisionist tripe. However, while it does not fit the historical evidence, it fits perfectly with contemporary politics.
Whatever the merits of the criticism over these exhibits may be, it is inaccurate and ahistorical to reduce Madison as just another "enslaver." The true story is far more nuanced and frankly intriguing.
Madison had slaves, and that is a great stain on his legacy.
However, Madison also opposed slavery and sought its elimination. His views often put him at odds with other Virginians. Even during the Revolution, Madison opposed a proposal to offer recruits free slaves for their service and instead proposed giving slaves their freedom in exchange for their military service as "more consonant to the principles of liberty which ought never to be loss sight of in a contest for liberty."
While Madison wrote early in his career to Edmund Randolph that he wanted "to depend as little as possible on the labor of slaves," he never made that break with the infamous use of such labor.
Before the Constitutional Convention, Madison wrote a publication entitled "Vices of the Political System of the United States," which declared that "where slavery exists the republican Theory becomes still more fallacious."
Madison, however, would forge a compromise with pro-slave delegates in the infamous provision that set representation in one house be based on the number of free inhabitants in each state plus three-fifths of the number of slaves.
Madison would continue to work with those resisting slavery, including the dispatch of an extraordinary letter in 1810 to the American minister to Great Britain, William Pinkney, supporting the British condemnation of an American slave ship — even suggesting arguments to facilitate such condemnation. As president, he pushed Congress to end the slave trade.
The compromise captures much of the conflicted background of Madison and slavery. He often chose compromise while seeking to nudge the country toward banning slavery. He met in his home with abolitionists and free slaves to discuss ending slavery.
Madison resisted selling slaves and sold off property to support his estate instead. In his will, Madison asked that the slaves not be sold and instead be allowed to remain on the property until their deaths. (Dolley Madison would later sell the property and the slaves due to the towering debt).
The fact is that there were better men when it came to slavery. General Marquis de Lafayette was a better man. The fierce abolitionist visited Madison and viewed him as a kindred spirit, but noted the continued presence of slaves on the property. Madison's aide, Edward Coles, was a better man. With Madison's praise, Coles freed his slaves shortly after Madison retired from the presidency and gave each of them some land in Illinois.
Madison did not believe that freed slaves could live and thrive in a country given "the prejudices of the whites, prejudices which … must be considered as permanent and insuperable." He proposed instead the funding of a colony in Africa for freed slaves.
Madison always viewed slavery as the thing that would tear the country (and his Constitution) apart. He would be proved correct in 1861. However, his efforts to compromise in favor of incremental progress sacrificed principle to politics.
That is a far more interesting and instructive history than the misleading portrayal created at Montpelier. Just as Madison too readily yielded to politics in his life, the new board has done so today in this revisionist account of this great but complicated historical figure.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of former President Donald Trump.
Today's lesson is that historical figures, like all people, have to be judged by their total contributions/flaws. Madison was a great man despite his flaws which were derived from the times he lived in. Philanthropists like Rubenstein should be able to donate, but never should be allowed to put out narratives.
Mary Alexander is the heroine in this little known story.
In other words his greatness is eternal but his flaws were transitory to the times he lived in.
Sorry, thanks to slaveowners like Madison and the legacy of supremacy they created , America has been a racist country for almost all of its 246 years.
America is the most tolerant country on earth. Much of the third world is voting it so with their feet.
“America is the most tolerant country on earth. Much of the third world is voting it so with their feet.”
And yet some will on one hand applaud our tolerance, and on the other deny the intent.
What intent? To violate the law?
And therein lies the differences between so many of us.
Those that accept, appreciate, and allow the intent…that we are a country and society that is welcoming to all.
As opposed to those that would rather build walls, foment division, write laws, and elect individuals that are secular, selective and separative in every instance.
We are a sovereign state with borders and laws. The those you refer to do not accept the rule of law
Apparently you, a leftist, are one of the few that believe this bullshit.
If it is true, why are hundreds of thousands of people trying to get here legally from minority countries, and millions illegally from all over the world.
Maybe it is the white liberal leftists that are the racists. They have just been in denial mode for over 200 years.
Legally, but it seems leftists do not understand this term.
What a crappy, emotional nationalist thing to say. I pray you don't believe that.
As Drinker alluded to in comment 2.1.7 the USA is in the bottom 10 nations out of 78
Almost no where to go but up.
Don't worry, your safe. Using the most exaggerated number of 1.2 million illegals every
year and the estimate that the population of the "third world" is over 1.4 billion souls
it will take at least 1,166 for all of them to walk here.
ciao.
the USA is in the bottom 10 nations out of 78
If a poll says it, it must be true!
on't worry, your safe
I thought his point was clear. I don't know how you missed it
The those he referred to were the current conservative parties and red states.
So maybe you are correct ironically...
Sorry dude, you are outta line on this one. Was Madison perfect? Of course not, but he was pretty damn good and had a lot of great ideas despite his flaws. Yes he owned slaves and in many ways was a product of his time, but his political philosophies and ideas ultimately helped to fuel the end of slavery and he played an integral part in the creation of the US which ultimately led to the spread of democratic governance around the world. I think that counts for something, but maybe I am crazy. If we defined purely by our faults then we all fucking suck, every one of us.
Racism existed well before America and was of course well ingrained in the country by the time of its founding, that is not Madison's fault. And I have to agree with Vic, America is probably the most tolerant country on the planet. Despite our issues, past and current, no other country is even remotely as diverse as the US. It really isn't even close, and you see tons of examples of racism in Europe and Asia. What other country sports as many politicians, athletes, celebrities etc. with differing ethnic and racial backgrounds?, What other country is overall as diverse as the US?
We still have a long way to go on the path to true equality, but we are definitely farther along on that path than 99% of the planet.
Any poll that ranks the USA below China in racial equity, is clearly bogus.
Period .... full stop.
Agreed. In China it is Han Chinses or nothing.
What, something like 92% Chinese?
I’m sure that meager 8% are treated like kings ....... just don’t be Uyghur.
Lol or anything other than Han, maybe Manchurian if the government is feeling generous.
And yeah, like 92% Han Chinese. China is hardly a model for racial diversity or acceptance.
The countries that did the best in that racism survey were Canada and European Countries with large white majorities and little racial diversity while some of the worst have large Arabic majorities and little racial diversity.
Okay, let's not make this a Muslim thing. Christians are just as bad, I know where you are trying to go.
Don't think that because we agree on one thing that we are friends or that you can get me to start on your behalf.
By dragging religion (a complete fucking joke IMO) into it you turn me back to hostile. Pantera covered it pretty well.
It’s not a Muslim or Christian thing. It’s a human rights thing. Be they religious, racial, free speech, etc.
Like most Communist countries, China is at the very bottom of that list. The very bottom.
I'm not trying to make it anything, I just observed the findings. Perhaps there are many big flaws with it. As some have noted, China did better than would be expected. What makes you think you know where I'm trying to go? I'm not a Christian..
Are you trying to be silly or just got confused?
I haven't drug anything and I'm not religious at all.
Completely agree.
If true, that is really sad when one takes a closer look at the human rights abuses in US history.
Category:Human rights abuses in the United States - Wikipedia
to compare with other countries.
Category:Human rights abuses by country - Wikipedia
You are so spot on
Most tolerant? I don't think so
So true, entirely too many triggered, intolerant and angry leftists here.
And they, too, lead the crowd with the most racists.
Just ask any minority conservative.
“Just ask any minority conservative.”
One would think such snowflakes would be more concerned about the warming global climate.
So it is obvious you are OK with liberals, especially white liberals, hurl racist comments, names, etc, at minority conservatives.
Are you a white liberal, cuz......?
No problem, been there.
Tolerance is not why the third world is coming here, they are coming because their home countries are full(er) of 'hit that the United States. It is questionable how long even that will keep up with MAGA conservatives demeaning and pointing to horns on the heads of their fellow citizens. In addition, the MAGA faithlessness to Rule of Law.
So third 'worlders' come for the good stuff, and ignore the bullshit. But then, that is what we, the true citizens, permanently here should be working for its betterment, whether than trying to tear each other down and suppress what's left!
Stop it. You can't lay claim to the lack of racism in this country. MAGA tries to pretend that race does not matter. But, then, MAGA is dominionist. MAGA is masking its 'dirty' behind conservatism and a hatred of liberals, where the majority of minorities are associated today.
So yes, third 'worlders' are coming here, because this country is not as bad (yet) as it once was. They come for the good "parts" - not the hatred, not the gun violence, not the repression of women. They come for what stability remains, the fame, and the finances to be made/gained (and sent back 'home').
So did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and so does his niece, Dr. Alveda King. As she says, "We are all one race ... the human race." I find that to be true and very refreshing.
An inconvenient truth for the triggered.
We are the same and we should celebrate the diversity of skin, hues, textures, and talents. We do not, nevertheless. For example, girls and women are being 'put down' beneath boys and men (once again) in conservative states. . . why do it if as you imply we are all deserving of better(ment)?
Apparently you are triggered to engage. . . so 'teacher,' tell me that Dr. King's message was not about race and its negative impact on rights to blacks and other poor minority classes who operated under his banner. Go ahead, you've been recognized.
Your understanding of “triggered” in this context is sophomoric at best.
And your use of "sophomoric" is abusive. But, who cares?
Trigger this: Don't deflect:respect the context of the comment and answer with something substantial.
Have you ever read "The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Antebellum South" by Kenneth Stampp? He wrote this non-fiction book in 1956 and it has remained a classic to today. I read it in my high school US History 1 class. At 16, I didn't understand it very well, but when I reread it as an adult, I realized what a great book it is.
Nah, the truth is never abusive. It may sting a bit but there you go.
Nope but thx, I’ll look it up.
Okay, so truthfully deal with the substantive context of the comment: Prove Dr. King as a non-racial, color-blind entity in the 60's. Go ahead. Have at taking the sting out of that!
So much for the First Amendment.
Free speech is quite different from placing one's own storyline on a historic property.
Everyone should know that!
It's owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. When you buy it, you can decide what's said there.
Not something like that.
They aren't preserving history, they are politicizing it.
History has always been political.
Is that what they are teaching?
Not out here in the real world.
That's how it is.
Take the history of the American Revolution. Do you think there were no politicians involved in our Revolution on both sides of the Atlantic, that politics didn't play a huge role in how things turned out, and that the telling of that history hasn't been filled with political spin for decades?
That would be naive in the extreme. There's a reason for the saying "history is written by the victors".
Give me an example of the political spin?
There's a reason for the saying "history is written by the victors".
Do you remember who said it?
This is a catalogue of myths regarding the Revolution, including myths promoted to justify the Revolution at the time. Motivating people to start a revolution is about as political as it gets, Vic.
As far as "History is written by the victors", Churchill was fond of saying it, but nobody really knows its origin. The saying likely was around before he was in some form or other.
Of course, this is a deflection.
The myths listed there are no more than patriotic slogans that are easily disposed of. The Journal is basic history in my view. I don't think that was a good example. A real myth, more like a bold faced lie would be someone writing that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery. That is the real revision we are facing.
As far as "History is written by the victors", Churchill was fond of saying it, but nobody really knows its origin.
True Sandy, but it is most notably attributed to this man:
Of course, this is a deflection.
Of course, that's why you said nobody really knows its origin.
Please. You can't refute any of it, so you just dismiss it out of hand.
As far as your deflection, the history of the phrase goes back much farther.
Perhaps a bit of research is called for, rather than accusing me of evading just because I knew that the phrase was older than you chose to believe.
You didn't read what I said correctly. I agree with that Journal. It's basic history. I only pointed out that the myths were things that people know were little patriotic twists. Those are easy to knock down. So I'll say it again: That journal is basic history.
It's not a good idea to compare the American Revolution with the French Revolution. Two different things, which the French People have come to realize and Charles Dickens knew centuries ago:
Perhaps
Perhaps it's time to confront the real revisionist history.
To you I ask: Was the American Revolution fought to preserve slavery?
Addressed later in the article.
I was taught the myth of the bungling British soldiers, completely lost if they couldn't fight in organized lines, in school.
Yes, there was the Stamp Act and the Townshend Act, and so forth. All of the "taxation without representation" stuff. But I doubt that those objecting to those acts objected to having British soldiers to protect them during the French and Indian War, or objected to Britain supplying them with weapons during that war. The Boston Massacre was hardly one-sided violence.
The British were painted as tyrannical oppressors, but in reality, they just...weren't that bad. Not perfect, by any means. Certainly, there was quite a bit of tone-deafness and heavy-handedness among Parliament regarding colonists' complaints.
They were myths used to justify war and the formation of a new and independent nation, Vic. That's politics. That's history being politicized. Period. You wanted an example, and I've given you one. You're moving goalposts.
I gave you a real one ...One that is in danger of being taught to young school children.
And you were silent.
I gave you a real one. And you discounted it.
Either history is political or it's not, Vic. First you said it wasn't. Now you're saying it is, but only when you object to what's being taught. You can't have it both ways.
Again: Are you in favor of teaching American school children that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery ?
It's really an easy question Sandy.
I'm certain that they didn't, it's also true that tens of thousands of British colonists fought in that war.
How would you feel at being compelled to house soldiers, feed them and provide drink, fuel and transportation at your house?
Is history political, or are you going to continue simultaneously arguing that it is and isn't, then deflecting to other questions when called out?
I wouldn't much care for it. I'd likely be grateful for the protection from the French, though. As I said, it's much more nuanced than it's been made out to be. The British weren't as bad as they were made out to be. The Americans weren't as good as they were made out to be. History, viewed through the lens of politics.
“The British weren't as bad as they were made out to be.”
Hence all the Tory’s.
Yesterday and today…’tis easy to accept the status quo. Thanks be to those, yesterday and today, willing to be courageous.
Even good historians, striving for accuracy can have their analysis blurred by their biases, to include political. That's not what happened in the 1619 Project. Hannah-Jones herself purposely distored the importance of slavery in the Revolution and has dismissed the arguments against that as evidence of a gap between black and white historians.
Of course they can.
And politics is often the reason, one way or another, for events in our history. Even if politics aren't at the start, they almost inevitably find their way in somehow. For example politics don't start plagues (Black Death, Spanish Flu, Covid), but they're pretty much always involved in how those plagues are handled, and even named (Spanish flu started in the US, most likely).
History is political.
Yes, it's estimated that 15-20% of the colonists remained loyal to Britain and about half of them left the country at the end of the war.
Yes and key parts of the 1619 Project aren't history, it's ideology.
I haven't followed the deflection to the 1619 Project, much to the disappointment of some here when they've been called out for claiming that history is both not political and political, depending on whether they like the politics in question.
Deflection?
The seed is about slave ownership in colonial times and how that history is presented.
Is the 1619 Project our only source for such information?
No, I'm sure that you can find disinformation elsewhere.
Is there disinformation being presented in stating that Madison owned slaves?
Careful, you might trip and call The Trail of Tears ideology.
I remember seeing Unto These Hills in Cherokee, North Carolina. I was ten and thought it was a very moving play about a harsh tragedy.
I doubt it but I haven't seen the exhibit. I was speaking of the disinformation in the 1619 Project.
Well, I'm addressing Vic's claim that history isn't political (but also is, when he doesn't like the politics).
Uh huh
That was basically it. We were pretty much getting our asses handed to us for almost the entirety of the war but we pretty much Afghanistaned that shit. We drug it out for so long that the Brits more or less couldn't afford it anymore and it just wasn't worth it at a certain point. oh, and we received significant financial and material support from the other major power of the time, France.
Of course that support resulted in the fall of the French monarchy and a whole lot of craziness in Europe for awhile, but hey, we appreciated it!
Word is Ben Franklin and TJ really enjoyed those negotiations.
You need to learn the difference between myth's that are based on patriotism and politics.
Patriotism is often politically motivated, and is often used by politicians to further their ends.
I think Turley either intentionally or by accident painted a damning picture of Madison. At least for people who can think.
In exchange for the most basic of human rights, freedom, Madison intended to require military service.
There was a pattern of this among Madison, Jefferson , and Washington. They had written positions where they talked disparangingly of slavery, but did little to nothing in a practical way to back up their big talk with action. Why? Most likely because slaves were making money for them.
Technically an improvement in the outlook on slavery, but in reality Virginia already had more than enough slaves to regenerate that population without further importation. For Madison's personal purposes no new slaves from Africa were needed.
Madison's plan for freeing slaves was evidently to have them die off.
It seems that when Turley makes a point that counters your argument, you try to dispute it:
Technically an improvement in the outlook on slavery, but in reality Virginia already had more than enough slaves to regenerate that population without further importation. For Madison's personal purposes no new slaves from Africa were needed.
You've been painting the damning pictures.
The total picture = Madison was a great historical figure.
I think the three/fifths compromise was necessary to have the Constitution ratified. In the light of subsequent events over two centuries it doesnt merit as much praise as it probably received at the time.
As far as wanting to end the slave trade, that had little effect on slavery in America. Children born to slaves were slaves themselves, by law. In itself this assured a sufficient number of slaves and future slaves to last for a long, long, long time.
Very good point. I recently learned something in Bret Baier's book on US Grant: At the time of Reconstruction, when the US government was allowing all black Americans the right to vote, it was revealed that at least one southern state had more black residents that white ones. Thus, we can easily see what the old south feared about voting.
In itself this assured a sufficient number of slaves and future slaves to last for a long, long, long time.
It did a lot more damage than that.
That's it in a nutshell isn't it? You think America is a mistake that should never have been founded.
s far as wanting to end the slave trade, that had little effect on slavery in America
Of course it did. It was recognition, in the Constitution that slavery was a blight. Not to mention the effect it had globally, spurring other countries to move towards banning it, principally England.
Robert George, the Princeton Professor, tells the story of how he asks to raise their hand if they would have been abolitionists if they were born in the South in 1800. Everyone raises their hand.
People assume their morals aren't shaped by their environment. John, if you would have been born in Richmond, you almost certainly (99%) have been a cheerleader for slavery. Everyone, who goes along with conventional morality today, imagines they would have been the one person to fight against slavery, had they been born in the south. It's funny how delusional people are.
.
Indeed, of the 11 million Africans transported to the New World during the 350 years of the Atlantic Slave Trade, only about 307,000 or 3% came to North America. North America didn’t import as many because slaves here, lived long enough and reproduced. In contrast, almost 1 million Africans went to little Jamaica and over 700,000 to Cuba.
I totally acknowledge that the founding fathers were born into the slaveowning system. It does not erase their accomplishments.
We have people in this country, tens of millions, who do not want to acknowledge that America has always been a racist country. They would rather keep bragging about 1776 and the brilliance of the founders.
We should be able to do both - criticize the founders and praise them according to what is being discussed.
A world report on racial tolerance prepared by US News and World Report, the BAV Group, and the Wharton School has the US ranked 69th out of 79 countries. The ranking resulted largely from our institutionalized racism employment, education, and the justice system. Countries that did the best were Canada and Northern Europe were there is less racial and ethnic diversity.
Truth. People seem to have this idea that the person they currently are is who they were always going to be when the reality is your life's circumstances, experiences, and the environment you grow up in play a significant role in who you end up becoming. I have no doubt that had I grown up in the south in the 1700 or 1800s I would have been pro slavery, because that would have been all I had known and I would have had it drilled into my head from day one. Not my fault, but I still would have been wrong. Our experiences make us who we are.
That is something that HAS to be considered when examining something like racial tolerance. How ethnically diverse are the countries at the top? Do they really have enough diversity to make issues of race or ethnicity an actual thing?
The US is truly unique in this regard. According to the most recent census about 60% of the country identifies as white, then you have nearly 19% identifying as Hispanic, 13.5% identifying as black, 6% as Asian, and then smaller percentages identifying as mixed race, native etc. What other country has that sort of racial/ethnic makeup?
I bet you would see many of those countries drop in the rankings if they all of a sudden had a black population of 13%, and the majority group actually had to contend with the idea that their power and influence was being diminished.
Exactly, Lincoln at least let you buy your way out of the Draft.
We have not had any slaves for a long time so people should quit complaining about it,
When we discuss people who owned slaves, as historical figures, it is totally appropriate to go into their owning of slaves. It is not the only appropriate thing to discuss about them, of course their achievements are good topics in and of themselves.
If a black person is cut off in line at the grocery store by a white person, it is not appropriate for the black person to respond by bringing up slavery. It is appropriate to bring it up when talking about historical figures in the US past.
Back then if you owned a farm in the south, you had slaves to work it that is just how it was. That was normal and what most prominent people did. Free blacks owned slaves.
Not necessarily. There were plenty of dirt poor white subsistence farmers in the South that could not afford slaves.
They usually were not historical figures that some are now trying to make look bad.
Agreed.
Slavery may be gone but its wounds still fester. It is still something the country has to contend with and reckon with. Jim Crow wasn't that long ago, and it takes some time for old attitudes and ideas to fade.
Can't stop complaining about it. Why? Because MAGA is making it uncomfortable and uneasy with its strategies to go back—way back. And we can all understand (as with SCOTUS) accepting the removal of its past deceased and retiring justices affirming opinions on key issues for minorities, that "with a stroke of the pen" all things past, present, and future are possible in state houses! That is, what is old can be come new again.
Revisionist history has been around in one form or another for a long, long time.
Talking about slave owning founding fathers is not revisionist history.
It is of little importance, just something for those who want to stir up trouble to bitch about
I guess you don't see the importance of knowing history.
It is when the effort and end result is to try to make every white person alive in this country accept and feel a personal guilt and responsibility for things that happened long before they were born. That is what you want, not me. Not going to happen. Yes slavery happened and was a terrible thing, but that time is long past.
No one is forcing you to feel guilty about anything.
Let me ask you a question, like many Americans , are you proud of what the Founding Fathers accomplished and the path they put the nation on? The point being , if we can be proud of something that happened 250 years ago we can be "not proud" of something else that happened 250 years ago. It is not a matter of you being personally blamed for slavery , any more than you should feel personally proud because you wrote the Constitution.
I believe that there remains a degree of institutional racism in our country and see that as a greater. lasting stain than slavery which ended over 150 years ago. We have also made significant progress over the last 60 years at reducing that institutional racism. Slavery was obviously a terrible institution, but the descendants of slaves live here with much better conditions than their distant relatives that remain in West Central Africa, Benin, Biafra, and Senegambia.
“We have also made significant progress over the last 60 years at reducing that institutional racism.”
Do tell.
And please couch any response in understanding the efforts by too many legislatures in making the opportunity to vote more difficult for anyone, but disproportionately effecting our fellow citizens of color.
Your question to me is a yes and no answer. Am I proud of what the Founding Fathers did about slavery? That was a shameful situation and definitely a big no. There are others, but I am generally proud of the rest.
As far as blame for being white, which I am only part, I cite CRT and the 1619 Project, which I am sure my interpretation differs from yours so better not to even discuss it here because we will not agree.
The Founding Fathers were not perfect and had their flaws that have to be accepted. The big problem today is that many people try to judge those individuals by the standards of today rather than in the contest of the times they lived in.
A good day to you John.
African American poverty has been reduced, In 2019, the black poverty rate was 18.8% or about half of what it was in 1966. College attendance has grown from 4% in the mid-sixties to 26% obtaining a degree by 2019. Congress has 57 Black members, the 1960's saw 4 members grow to 11 by the end of the decade. Racially restrictive covenants are illegal.
“I cite CRT and the 1619 Project…”
Purely political cites, meant only to feed the beast…thus ignoring the less than flattering aspects of our history, making yet another divisive point of of contention, and blaming our educational system when they are the very last folks responsible for such short-sided and puerile intentions.
The biggest 1619 Project error, which is purely political is the assertion that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America.
Who here believes that?
It's an indefensible lie and I believe that Nikole Hannah-Jones knew it was a lie when she told it.
And she was celebrated for it.
Now you know why I'm so fond of them.
Frankly, I think that has more to do with politics than race. Are some who are pushing policies, fucking somehow in 2022, racist? Of course, but I think most are pushing them disenfranchise specific voting blocs that favor their political opponents. I really don't think race itself is the motivating factor for many of those who don't like democracy in practice.
We have been getting better. We still have a ways to go but things are a hell of a lot better than they were 20,30, 50 years ago.
That's a myth. It's not happening.
CRT - something not being taught. Typical deflection
BINGFUCKINGO
But election fraud is?
If you even think "yes" then fuck off.
No, just say that 'we are just 'bitching' about something' and leave it at that
BINGFUCKINGO?
afaydknot asked a simple question that I answered, although my follow-up question remains unanswered.
But mass election fraud is?
By the same token, so is denying that it is not. Depends on which side of the fence one is on.
DEI, thanks to NEA and AFT sanctioned propaganda.
Yep.
I would like to read this part for myself. Is there any place I can find it?
You can find information on the exhibit here , it's called The Mere Distinction of Colour.
Go to the head of the class, sir.
Not a fan of Turely ... nor his pedantic partisanship, however, a quick browse through my library reveals a number of authors and composers whose history does not shower them in the klieg light of someone's definition of acceptability. I still listen to their music and still read their words. Ezra Pound, a fascist, wrote some of the most beautiful poetry of the 20th cent. Richard Wagner, a virulent anti-semite, composed some of the greatest music of the 19th cent. Louis-Ferdinand Céline, a brilliant French novelist joined the Vichy regime. Bob Dylan was a misogynist. Dylan Thomas, the Welsh poet, stole from anyone he ran into to feed his alcoholism. Jackson Pollock, America's most renowned Abstract Expressionist, was a drunken narcissist. Arthur Rimbaud, the French poet became a gun smuggler in North Africa.
Everyone has a past with glass shadows ... I could ramble on about my mother's anti-semitism and how it was nurtured by the German occupation of Greece in WWII but then she was a good woman who took great care of her family. I know which one to remember.
As we all say at one time or another, this is not rocket science.
It is entirely and indisputably possible to both praise Madison for his great achievements in government and political philosophy and also criticize him for his actions as a slaveowner.
I dont hold anything against Madison , but I'll be damned if I'm going to let people shower praise on the founding fathers as if they are demi-gods without mentioning the big mote in their eye, slavery.
Nor should you, there are leaders throughout history deserving of some negative criticism for how they got to the top of the pedestal. Queen Elizabeth I should have been beheaded (rough tomes) for several infractions not the least of which was withholding pay from the crews who fought the Armada. Dead broke, She had a trick up her sleeve, the crews could not disembark until they were paid ... many died.
You want to do a lot more than that.
You and another here, who refuses to admit that the American Revolution was not fought to preserve slavery, want to teach our children those very same lies. You also once said you want reparations. So let's not pretend that you only want to remind us of who owned slaves. That is not what this is about.
Note the question Sandy refused to answer.
Note that you are attempting to force me to withdraw an assertion I never made, while refusing to withdraw an assertion you made which was more or less obliterated.
As far as I'm concerned you just made it.
No, I haven't, and it is dishonest in the extreme to assert that I have.
You and Sean seem committed to try and put words in other's mouths. I dont need your help speaking Vic.
I have never said that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, although many of the founding fathers did in fact preserve slavery. But to say that was the "purpose" of the Revolution is a far stretch.
If you are interested in expanding your thinking a little, I recommend you consult the book 13 Clocks
You and another here cling to the white washed history lessons taught to you many
decades ago in grade school and high school about the moral purity of the American
Revolution.
1619 attempts to portray the same history through the eyes of a slave.
.
The ugly truth is somewhere in between, buried in the unmarked graves of blacks,
American Indians, Irish and Chinese who died so white christian robber barons could
create a country from coast to coast while chasing the almighty coin.
.
At least Turley forever the partisan "columnist" didn't deny Madison his comment on race.
One could assume that coming from Madison and Turley you could accept that as the truth.
A liberal scholar who is also evidently a supporter of Nicole Hanna Jones and the 1619 Project, which I am not. Although I may still read it just out of interest sake.
I take it then, that you also see the 1619 Project as the black washed history lessons some want taught today. What do you think our history would have been if instead of being settled by white christian robber barons, it had been brown muslim or yellow confucian robber barons that arrived here instead?
"1619 attempts to portray the same history through the eyes of a slave."
I thought that was a clear enough statement.
And I don't believe they want the 'overexageration' taught, they want some balance included in teaching our collective histories,
Remember being forced to memorize the Paul Revere poem in grade school?
Harmless indoctrination.
A lot of the rest of the indoctrination was not as harmless. The omissions were grave.
The results are still visible and palpable.
If we had been "conquered" by a different group, the results would probably be similar in their favor.
No one is arguing that.
Only that it's not treasonous to teach a balanced version instead of what we were taught in the 50's & 60's
Typical
Also
BINGFUCKINGO
Maybe that was the purpose, if so, it was incomplete. Most of the characterizations of slavery in the original NY Times magazine reflected laws and practices from the antebellum era and didn't illustrate the varied experiences of the first generation of enslaved people that arrived in Virginia in 1619.
How about accuracy and completeness instead of balance? The assertion that “One critical reason that the colonists declared their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery in the colonies", is historically untrue. An accurate and comprehensive understanding isn't black and white. (pun intended).
I think an excellent history and analysis is found in Edmund Morgan’s American Slavery, American Freedom, which addresses explicitly how the intertwined histories of Native American, African American and English residents of Virginia are foundational to understanding the ideas of freedom we still struggle with today., it provided me a rich understanding of how the intertwined histories of Native American, Black and English residents of of early Virginia. It is very readable account of the tragic contradiction at the core of our history.
Fucking slavery.... founders.... fucking slavery. FUCK!
[deleted] the NYP and WSJ have both printed editorials denouncing Trump.
Thanks for wasting only a few words.
That must be emotionally traumatizing. I don't know what's become of democracy these days, with government inaugurating the winners of elections and expecting the will of the people to be obeyed. It's almost like they want government of the people, by the people, for the people, or some unamerican shit like that.
And CRT itself was a legal construct which points out that there are still deed restrictions in places like Levittown PA and Levittown NY which SCOTUS refused to rule on, instead stating that they were unenforceable. Like Levittown, redlining by our financial institutions is a matter of fact not fiction and the results are still visible today, still affecting minorities today.
Have we made progress?
I look at Ralph Warnock and Adam West and say yes.
I met Herschel Walker in 1985 and see him campaigning on TV now and say no.
Like the women's movement, they've come a long way baby, but they aren't "there" yet.
( Virginia Slims was the last cigarette commercial aired on American TV )
As a nation, we have a long way to go, more so in some states than others.
"That must be emotionally traumatizing."
Waking up to being a square peg in a round hole can have that effect ... personally I find it exhilarating.
Yes, SCOTUS ruled the covenants unenforceable in 1948 and the Fair Housing Act outlawed them in 1968.
Yes and surprisingly some of our worst housing and education segregation is in the North'
----------------------------
Clearly explained in the Preamble:
No worries, I kniw you aint busy
Undoubtedly you can make that case as a result of the exodus of blacks to northern
industrial cities but countless southern cities have similar problems.
But our worst housing and education exists on most Indian reservations,
improving slowly, casino by casino it would seem but a very long trail to go.
Most to Least Segregated Cities in the US, 2019 :
3 of the top 10 are in the South, 6 in the North and 1 in the middle of the least are in the South.
You know that there is a Black reverse migration underway
I loved it when the Marines used that song as a recruiting tool.
Major cities. How about Jacksonville NC (Camp Lejune) or Beaufort SC (Parris Island)
Been there, done that, seen the 'segregation' by economics as recently as the early 90's.
Still have friends and family in Port Royal SC who are happy enough to tolerate the
Gullahs and black service retirees but are not welcoming to what they see as other
people's problems moving there from the north.
The Civil War is simply in stasis for some of those folks.
It was a recruiting method that showed strength, commitment, loyalty, and bravery - unlike the wimpy recruitment cartoons they use today.
Yep.
Missed those cities in the top ten list noted ......
Had to dig a little to even find mention of one…
When you mention Jim Crow, people think of the South, yet California, Colorado, Connecticut and Delaware had Jim Crow laws.
Another reason I'm glad I live in the middle of the Sonoran Desert in SE Arizona. All those cities are East of Texas.
You live in a beautiful landscape, however this is much evidence of historical and current racism on the left coast.
Yep.
Also forgot Havelock NC (Cherry Point).
I taught ROTC in the late 80’s, Ok, not Navy or Marine, and spent 3 summers at Ft Bragg. On the route there, I developed a deep appreciation for their pulled pork BBQ and East Carolina sauce. Later, I also learned to appreciate the Gold Sauce just south of the border in South Carolina.
Lol .... honestly I didn’t notice much of problem on any of the bases we were on. We served together, lived together, socialized together. Color didn’t matter one wit to most of us. Now if you were a prick, yeah i guess I’m eternally biased towards dumbasses.
The racial problem was more pronounced in the enlisted ranks in the late 70’s & 80’s but so were all the other social ills that can come with a younger group of people. Big Chicken Dinners or worse were served up more than once but i recall only once it being caused by racially motivated BS.
Army ROTC eh? They loved us at my college. We were ready made aggressors for their field patrolling exercises.
Lots of lessons learned and just a little bit of fun for Marines .....
What is truly traumatizing is people who weren't taught civics:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
If you love democracy as much as you say and don't like elections questioned, don't fuck with the law of the land.
Where did I say I don't like elections questioned?
But when election results are repeatedly shown to be correct, the losing side should put on their big boy panties and not throw childish tantrums that get people killed. But some people weren't taught that type of maturity.
That brings back some memories. I did three summer camps at Bragg, three different positions, and running a 30 hour long range patrol lane was my favorite positions.
You brought Trump into it and tried to smear me with it.
Here:
" I don't know what's become of democracy these days, with government inaugurating the winners of elections and expecting the will of the people to be obeyed."
Sandy, It was your progressives that screwed around with the election, the law, federal agencies, impeachment, and the media for 4 years. You have the nerve to talk about "democracy!"
I continued the line of discussion you started.
Nobody "screwed around with" the election. Trump lost. He committed acts worthy of impeachment. The media was far kinder to him than he deserved. His pals in the media are abandoning him, because they've figured out they were kinder to him than he deserved.
Trump lost in a fair election. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with democracy.
Election rules were changed in battleground states before the 2020 election. BTW, it is common knowledge.
From NBC in July of 2019:
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with democracy.
I only have a problem with people who were taught what to think.
And who decides what is a "balanced version"?
And? States have the right to make their own election rules.
Some people apparently were taught to think that anybody who disagrees with them is always wrong, despite much evidence to the contrary. That's, well, not much thinking at all. It's just a kneejerk reaction. A reflex that requires no thought or reflection.
Ahhh, that's right Sandy! Only they can make election rules, yet they stood by as their authority was superseded by others.
Some people apparently were taught
In college Sandy! Never concede your ability to think for yourself.
The leftist NEA and academia with their “when you can’t do, you teach” mentality.
Which should concern everyone who prefers education over indoctrination.
You have no evidence of voter fraud. On a procedural basis , because some states adapted voting procedures to allow for the effect of the pandemic, you want to throw out the entire election in those states.
That is not how it works in America. Trump lost 62 of 63 cases he brought to address so called "election fraud". The court system of the United States did not give Trump's claims credence. Game over.
If you have any evidence that unregistered people voted or that they voted more than once, produce it, or shut up once and for all.
I never claimed voter fraud.
On a procedural basis
Absentee ballots favor democrats because they have an enthusiasm problem, thus Marc Elias used the pandemic to get the rules changed in border states to help democrats. Mark Zuckerberg massively funded state election boards to get out the democratic vote.
because some states adapted voting procedures to allow for the effect of the pandemic, you want to throw out the entire election in those states.
Only State Legislatures had that right.
That is not how it works in America. Trump lost 62 of 63 cases he brought to address so called "election fraud".
Stop the BS. There wasn't a lot of fraud (though there was some), but that election certainly wasn't the fair & wonderful election the far left likes to pretend.
You seem to have a real problem with education, Vic. You should really examine why that is. It's sad to be threatened by knowledge.
I think we have a crisis in education.
It's sad to be threatened by knowledge.
It's a tragedy to allow oneself to be indoctrinated.
Thanks to the pandemic, we've learned how serious this CRT/DEI crisis is.
And that is the real danger. It's not about a patriotic myth that says our founders were great in every way or those who fought in the American Revolution were the most enlightened people on earth. Those are things that every nation tries to instill in it's people.
The real & present danger is when some ideologue tries to say the Revolution was fought to protect slavery.
If they were, they wouldn't have specifically written "in order to form a more perfect union". That's what too many people fail to understand.
Fondly remembered by both left & right!
Then what's your excuse?
I don't read Kendi, John.
Touche!
I'm sure you think that. Indoctrination can do that to a person.
I take it that you want the last word?
Ok, Let me wrap up my end of it by saying that I consider you to be very intelligent. How you fell for some of the stuff you defend, I'll never know.
Have a good one Sandy.
Do you seriously believe all those far right "philosophers" from the 50's that you read are not indoctrinating you?
I'm less interested in "philosophy" than I am a way of life/standard of living. That's what guides me.
Well we know that. You put a vague standard of living requirement above the integrity and character (there is none) of your favorite president.
Correct. It is called PRIORITIES!
National priorities are up to the ballot box, not your whims.
The character of the national leader is crucial and cannot be voted on. It comes from within him. Donald Trump has less moral fiber than any president we have ever had, and we have seen that means nothing to you.
whims?
Whims is when one votes the likes of Joe Biden & his policies into office because you're tired of hearing about Trump.
Whims is when a woman votes for Newsom because she likes his looks.
whims is when someone who can barely speak English casts a thank you vote to democrats.
I vote on issues.
The character of the national leader is crucial and cannot be voted on. It comes from within him. Donald Trump has less moral fiber than any president we have ever had, and we have seen that means nothing to you
Check the priorities of the voters and see where frivolous concerns rate.
That's their excuse for their loss. No truth to be found but that's their excuse and they're sticking to it
CRT is not being taught K through 12th grade so there is no crisis
The only thing you've accurately accused me of defending is the result of the election.
And the moon really is made of cheese ....
Although you've posted this many times, you've never offered evidence. Both the NEA and AFT incorporate CRT/DEI into K-12 curricula. The AFT even invited CRT advocate Kendi to speak at a conference.
Whenever one reads "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion", one must realize that DEI is the same Marxist propaganda concept established in CRT - white people are oppressors, and non-white people are victims. CRT/DEI has existed for approximately 100 years in US K-12 education to varying degrees and has grown exponentially in recent years.
From July, 2021 ...
The National Education Association recently passed a resolution pledging to “fight back” against critics of teaching the theory in schools.
As part of its effort, the NEA will work to publicize “an already-created, in-depth study that critiques white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy … capitalism … and other forms of power and oppression,” according to the NEA site.
In June, the Department of Education announced a series of actions to “advance equity in education” through a series of summits.
“The first installment will feature remarks from Department leaders, panel discussions focused on evidence-based practices and promising strategies for building equitable and inclusive environments in our schools, and insights from leaders working to make equitable and inclusive schools a reality,” the department said in a release.
But then, Weingarten contradicts herself and then lies about what K-12 teachers have accurately taught for decades ...
This is the last time that I'll address this issue with you.
That sounds ridculous. No one should try to appease white people, simply because you are white. Others have the right to set the record straight as possible and keep it so. And yes, some conservative-minded white people have been and in some, many varied ways continue to be oppressive. The very act of you in your conservative worldview telling minorities what they can talk about regarding their past adventures and misadventures with white in the colonies is a perfect example of suppression [deleted]
Solely upon his role as the father of the Constitution, the most important governmental document ever created, he's one of the most important American of all time. That doesn't even touch upon his role founding the country, serving in Congress, a consequential President etc.. Yet to the race obsessed none of that matters. Madison is just another slave owner to be condemned for being an enlightened son of the 18th Century and for not having the foresight to be born in the 20th. It's just part and parcel of the progressive obsession with denigrating our country and anyone who helped create it.
Madison, mere mortal that he was, could never have lived up to the standards of the modern American progressive, who are the first perfect humans in history and entitled to judge everyone. All he did was though his ideas help start the dynamic that eventually led to the eradication of slavery despite it being a standard of human civilization across the world since the dawn of history. But since he wasn't able to totally live up to the ideals he essentially created, fuck him I guess.
An equivalent of this insanity would be be singularly focusing on MLK's plagiarism at his landmarks.
Who here said "Madison is just another slave owner"? Stop trying to put words in people's mouths. Its not going to work and you are going to end up looking more foolish than you do already. You constantly complain about people being obsessed with race even as you obsess about the people you are talking about.
From the literal article:
. Its not going to work and you are going to end up looking more foolish than you do already.
Lol.
So, the author of the article is arguing against what only the author of the article has said?
Ok.
author of the article is arguing against what only the author of the article has said?
try again.
Quote anyone saying he was "just another enslaver".
Nobody has. The author built a straw man, and you're helping him attack it.
I don't think anyone is saying that. I think what most people are saying (I hope) is that we need to acknowledge his shortcomings as well as his greatness. Do I think him being a slaveowner should cast a shadow over everything else he did, which was a fucking lot and frankly made him one of the most influential people in the last 500 years IMO, no, not really.
Context is important. VERY important. My overall estimate was that he did a lot more good for the world than harm. He deserves to be celebrated.
The extremists sure, but not all of us. But of course, fuck extremists no matter what their colors, extremism in any form is a poison.
Again, fuck extremists. Madison was a great man worthy of praise and admiration. Did he own slaves, yes he did. Is that a stain on his record, of course. But as you stated and as I said above, his accomplishments and ideas ultimately led to the end of slavery and the spread of democracy around the world. A net gain for humanity IMO.
And I had never really thought of it that way, but yeah, he helped put and end to the world's second oldest practice ( the oldest being prostitution of course), pretty damn impressive work.
We disagree a lot but not on this one. Great post.
I’d like to buy you a drink and a cigar sometime. Face to face I think we would have an excellent conversation. This place, like much of internet based conversations, is just too much of a goat-fuck .....
Some of y'all might want to re read the preamble again, see if that doesnt change perspective or give different thoughts .
I think Madison was educated and enlightened enough to understand that he had his own individual faults and flaws and that also because he knew he had them they also existed in others as well and i think that comes out in what some call his magnus opus of the US Constitution .
He and those that worked on it knew , it wasnt perfect , if they thought that they would have never have allowed for ways for it to be changed , he and they KNEW things WOULD change and society would change.
He was simply a person , of his period , knowing the faults and flaws of humanity , tried to do the best he could with what he had , knowing that what and where he was in time would never stay the same .
The first 15 words of the preamble was all it took for me to start thinking , they tell me he knew what was before was not perfect , he wanted to strive and to have opertunity to be more perfect than what existed before , yet he also seems to have known that humanity may never achieve something that is "perfect , yet the opertunity is still there to try .
The entire Preamble , IMO , speaks not to just the nation it was composed for , but is applicable to all of humanity anywhere and at any time , in spite of the flaws and faults of the author . that , is a magnus opus, a great work , that will likely stand the test of millinia . To me ? his greatest gift and achievement to this nation , and humanity is contained in the preamble itself .
That gift in my view? was hope .
Very good.
thank you .
Yes dude, we get it. He owned slaves, did not free them, and for all his take he still had slaves. He still didn't like it, and ultimately the government he helped create ended slavery.
Other countries around the world that didnt have the benefit of Madisons brilliance also ended slavery, sometimes sooner than America did.
Madison didnt like the concept of slavery it would probably be fair to say, he just liked the fact that they made money for him.
I'm certain that's true, but to say "just" leaves out the complexity about how best to free the slaves.
Maybe. But that makes him just the same as all of us yeah? OMG, James Madison was human!
“But that makes him just the same as all of us yeah?”
It is also disingenuous to place our 2022 perspectives on 18th Century realities.
Have we grown as a society? One would hope so and we demonstrably have.
Should we be held to the same standards as those that will define 25th Century America? One would hope not, but let us be a part of the bridge to fulfill the promise.
I did my best to not engage in presentism.