• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tenn. Tea Party Wants Slavery Removed From Textbooks?

Well said.

We should infect the textbooks with smallpox...

Honestly, I am not too concerned about the people mentioned in this thread since its a very small fringe group (as I mentioned on post 11), however, I strongly disagree with Alfons in the idea that we should rewrite history. This country is what it is, good and bad.
 
The founders were who they were, "trying to correct their image" implies that we should omit uncomfortable information, which would be a lie.

Explain how trying to correct the current image of our Founders as all pro-slavery is equal to removing any mention of slavery in textbooks. All I see is that the tea party wants the textbooks to be fair to our Founders instead of putting an emphasis on their weaknesses. I see the tea party wanting kids taught that many of our Founders were anti-slavery and were attempting to end it.

Again, I see nowhere where it says the tea party wants any mention of slavery omitted from textbooks. The title of this article is ridiculous and incorrect. This shouldn't be in "news" because it's biased as all get out.
 
Explain how trying to correct the current image of our Founders as all pro-slavery is equal to removing any mention of slavery in textbooks. All I see is that the tea party wants the textbooks to be fair to our Founders instead of putting an emphasis on their weaknesses. I see the tea party wanting kids taught that many of our Founders were anti-slavery and were attempting to end it.

Again, I see nowhere where it says the tea party wants any mention of slavery omitted from textbooks. The title of this article is ridiculous and incorrect. This shouldn't be in "news" because it's biased as all get out.

Mellie, I wasn't responding to the tea party, I was responding to Alfon's notion. As I stated twice, I don't give a flying flip about what the tea party (even though its really just a couple dozen people) wants to do in this thread.

Given that I have already stated it twice and you still want to try to argue, it tells me that you aren't really paying attention to what people are posting in this thread.
 
I'm failing to see the quote that states the TN tea party wants to remove all incidents of slavery and genocide from American textbooks. Maybe someone can point it out to me.

Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.

It's not all instances necessarily, BUT, it does whitewash the fact that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (among others) owned slaves. Sorry if that makes them look bad. Present the facts, let people make their own judgements.
 
My apologizes kinda new here

No problem. I must have missed the first go around.

From the OP:
That would include, the documents say, that “the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy.

Now, that would be a good idea. the US is not a democracy, but a constitutional republic. That is the answer to the WTF! response when the voters make a decision only to have it reversed by the courts: The Constitution, not the will of the people, is the supreme law of the land

However:

Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.

Made up criticism? Like, for example, the land that was settled already had people living on it? That some of the the FF kept slaves? That children were fathered by some of the FF with their slaves?

Hmm.. that sounds a lot like the mutability of the past to me. Now, let's see, where did I read about that? Hmm... does anyone recall that phrase?
 
Explain how trying to correct the current image of our Founders as all pro-slavery is equal to removing any mention of slavery in textbooks.

Well, they weren't ALL pro-slavery... wouldn't it be better to just teach which states supported slavery and which states didn't...

Oh, that's what they already do?

So why are we changing that?
 
It's not all instances necessarily, BUT, it does whitewash the fact that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson (among others) owned slaves. Sorry if that makes them look bad. Present the facts, let people make their own judgements.

You're right. I'm still failing to see how the TN Tea Party wants to eliminate that from textbooks.
 
Well, they weren't ALL pro-slavery... wouldn't it be better to just teach which states supported slavery and which states didn't...

Oh, that's what they already do?

So why are we changing that?

We're talking about the people...the Founders. All the TN Tea party is saying is that the Founders shouldn't be generally portrayed as slave-owners because they weren't all slave-owners. All the want is to be fair. They want kids to learn about the abolitionist Founders and the black Founders, not just that Jefferson and Washington owned slaves.

Why wouldn't you want a more well-rounded education on the people who founded this country?
 
I'm still waiting for someone to explain the title of this thread.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to explain the title of this thread.


From the OP:

“No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”
 
From the OP:

“No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

And how do you get "The TN Tea Party wants Slavery Removed from Textbooks" from that? I realize the OP was wise enough to phrase it as a question, but many people here are taking it as a statement. I see nowhere in this statement where the tea party wants slavery removed from textbooks. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
 
And how do you get "The TN Tea Party wants Slavery Removed from Textbooks" from that? I realize the OP was wise enough to phrase it as a question, but many people here are taking it as a statement. I see nowhere in this statement where the tea party wants slavery removed from textbooks. Perhaps you can explain it to me.


You can make up your own mind about. But I do read it as meaning to down play the role slavery did play in this nation.
 
And how do you get "The TN Tea Party wants Slavery Removed from Textbooks" from that? I realize the OP was wise enough to phrase it as a question, but many people here are taking it as a statement. I see nowhere in this statement where the tea party wants slavery removed from textbooks. Perhaps you can explain it to me.

Well slavery obscures the founding fathers words of "all men are created equal". :mrgreen:
 
Well slavery obscures the founding fathers words of "all men are created equal". :mrgreen:

Which is only half the story. They wrote that in there because most wanted an end to slavery. What's wrong with telling the whole story?
 
We're talking about the people...the Founders. All the TN Tea party is saying is that the Founders shouldn't be generally portrayed as slave-owners because they weren't all slave-owners.

I'm for portraying the just slave-owning founders as such.

And Thomas Jefferson as a founder who like him some brown sugar...


All the want is to be fair. They want kids to learn about the abolitionist Founders and the black Founders, not just that Jefferson and Washington owned slaves.

The black founders??

Why wouldn't you want a more well-rounded education on the people who founded this country?

I don't know, ask the TP.
 
Last edited:
Yes, black founders.
 
Well slavery obscures the founding fathers words of "all men are created equal". :mrgreen:

By "men" they meant "white males who own property". It's only later that people with excess melanin and even estrogen in their bodies came to be considered equal, and only after a struggle.
 
Yes, black founders.

Name one black man who singed the Declaration of Independence. Voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Or the Bill of Rights.

And sleeping with a black slave does not make you black. Cool and hip and ahead of your time, but not black.
 
As usual the Leftwing Koolaid drinkers did not actually READ what the article said...

“No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

“The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at,”

Nobody said "remove" anything...haymarket, are you REALLY that hate filled?
 
Last edited:
Which is only half the story. They wrote that in there because most wanted an end to slavery. What's wrong with telling the whole story?

Who says that? From my colloege government classes way back when, the phrase was put in by a more liberal element, and it didn't have anything to do with slaves at all. They largely meant white male property holders as being equal. But I'm open to any evidence you have that the phrase was put in to lead to ending slavery. :coffeepap
 
Name one black man who singed the Declaration of Independence. Voted to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Or the Bill of Rights.

Many helped us win independence from Britain, putting their lives in danger in order for this country to exist. I'd say that qualifies them.

And sleeping with a black slave does not make you black. Cool and hip and ahead of your time, but not black.

This doesn't deserve a comment. Ridiculous.
 
Many helped us win independence from Britain, putting their lives in danger in order for this country to exist. I'd say that qualifies them. .


They also fought for the British. Just from a quick search:

Freedom for Blacks

White Americans were divided over the issue of who to support at the outset of the American Revolution. Some historians estimate that 1/3 of the population were patriots, 1/3 were Loyalists and 1/3 were neutral but it probably varied from region to region. New York state and the Carolina's were big Loyalist centers with regiments of Loyalists soldiers forming from there and neutrality only works when there's no army in your vicinity.
For African Americans, what mattered most was Freedom. As the war spread through each region of the country, those in bondage sided with whichever Army promised them their personal liberty.
he British actively recruited slaves belonging to Patriot masters and thus more blacks fought for the Crown. The estimate of the slave population at the beginning of the Revolution is about 400,000 to 500,000 - or 20% of the population. An estimated 80,000 to 100,000 slaves escaped, died or were killed during the American Revolution — again, about 20% of the slave population. About 10,000 blacks were recruited and fought for the British side and about 5,000 blacks fought for the American side.



<snip>

Fighting for the Revolution



In Conclusion, there were five ways for blacks to serve during the American Revolution. 1) Free blacks could enlist for bounties. 2) Runaway slaves could lie about their status and join. 3) Slaves could serve as substitutes for white masters. 4) Slaves could be bought by State governments and freed upon service. (All New England States followed PA's lead and abolished slavery in their new State Constitutions.) and 5) Slaves could escape to the British or Germans. One account has black men dying at Yorktown fighting for the Americans, for the French, for the British and for the Germans.



Black Soldiers and Sailors during the American Revolution
 
Who says that? From my colloege government classes way back when, the phrase was put in by a more liberal element, and it didn't have anything to do with slaves at all. They largely meant white male property holders as being equal. But I'm open to any evidence you have that the phrase was put in to lead to ending slavery. :coffeepap

This has been discussed ad nauseum when he talked about the 3/5 compromise. I'll link you up...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...e-three-fifths-clause-completely-wrong-5.html
 
Yes, some fought for the British as well. Thank you for the research, winston.
 
Yes, some fought for the British as well. Thank you for the research, winston.


ABout twice as many it looks like. And at first there were barriers put up by the Americans to them serving:

At first it appeared that when George Washington took command of the Continental Army, he barred the further recruitment of black soldiers, even though many blacks had fought side by side with whites at Lexington & Concord and Bunker Hill (Washington, being a Southerner and a slave owner and assuming command in Massachusetts). But Washington actually allowed free blacks who had fought to re-enlist in 1775-76. The Continental Congress and most states except for Virginia in the Summer/Fall of 1776 barred the recruitment of blacks whether free or slave. The decision was taken out of his hands.
 
Back
Top Bottom