• 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?

No, it didn't.

I find it very interesting that some people are refusing to give black people who helped found this country any credit. It's almost as though you think they were all puppets and just "helped" because they had to. It's almost as though you think all black people hated white people back then and vice versa. It's almost as though you think all the white founders were racist. Weird....

A partner conversation to this could be the "Civil Rights Era" which didn't start in the 1960s, but most people think it did.

Black people may have fought in the war of independence however that doesn't make them founders and if it does, their contemporaries certainly did not see it that way. 55 white representatives from the 13 colonies issued a constitution that took race as a qualification for citizenship. To know this and assert that blacks 'founded' this country in any capacity is simply dishonest.
 
Black people may have fought in the war of independence however that doesn't make them founders and if it does, their contemporaries certainly did not see it that way. 55 white representatives from the 13 colonies issued a constitution that took race as a qualification for citizenship. To know this and assert that blacks 'founded' this country in any capacity is simply dishonest.

she said HELPED founded, you are purposely misquoting her by leaving out that word...surprising that a liberal can be so dishonest....
There were educated and free blacks at the time that were for the revolution. Just because 55 liberal white guys from 13 colonies did not invite them to the party doesn't mean they didn't support the cause.
The 55 who did attend would not have met if they thought the rest of the country was against them....they had many supporters.
 
she said HELPED founded,

And again, that is simply wrong. Blacks did not found this country or help found it. Those who drafted the constitutional document upon which the laws of the country are based founded it. Sorry that a simple concept of political science escapes two of our supposed "teachers". No wonder Republicans are so opposed to their unions. Teachers seem to consistently demonstrate an inability to understand what is not written in a cheap textbook.

Did blacks help in expanding the ruling regime's territory? Sure. Did they help in creating new legislation for that territory? Sure. Were some of them present during the time the country was founded? Yes. Did they play a role in the country's foundation? No, they did not. The fact that Mellie provided slaves as proof that there are black founding fathers is simply more right wing revisionism of history. Slaves do not play a role in the foundation of any nation. Why? A little word called "citizenship". We'll explore it bellow.

you are purposely misquoting her by leaving out that word...surprising that a liberal can be so dishonest....
There were educated and free blacks at the time that were for the revolution. Just because 55 liberal white guys from 13 colonies did not invite them to the party doesn't mean they didn't support the cause.
The 55 who did attend would not have met if they thought the rest of the country was against them....they had many supporters.

She's dishonest for the simple fact that citizenship and active representation in the political system are the bare minimum of requisites for being considered a founder. As blacks, and I mean all blacks, had neither of these for nearly 70 years after the country was founded. It's impossible that they took a role in the foundation of anything. Why don't you try picking up a book on the basics of what it means to be a founder? Women didn't play a role in the foundation of this country either. How could they? They held none of the basic privileges which most citizens today take for granted. Neither did the French. Neither did Native Americans. It was 55 white guys who drafted a constitution establishing political and military supremacy over a given territory. Those 55 white guys granted themselves Founder status by the mere fact that they created the basic political operating framework for the country. If you don't want to accept this then that's up to you. World history disagrees with you. :shrug:.

By the way. If you do not believe me - you can look at the most basic piece of evidence validating my argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If some blacks were founders in any capacity, why did they need an amendment to guarantee them the same rights and privileges as the rest of the citizens and founders of this country? They must have been considered "3/5ths of a Founder".
 
Last edited:
And again, that is simply wrong. Blacks did not found this country or help found it. Those who drafted the constitutional document upon which the laws of the country are based founded it. Sorry that a simple concept of political science escapes two of our supposed "teachers". No wonder Republicans are so opposed to their unions. Teachers seem to consistently demonstrate an inability to understand what is not written in a cheap textbook.

Did blacks help in expanding the ruling regime's territory? Sure. Did they help in creating new legislation for that territory? Sure. Were some of them present during the time the country was founded? Yes. Did they play a role in the country's foundation? No, they did not. The fact that Mellie provided slaves as proof that there are black founding fathers is simply more right wing revisionism of history. Slaves do not play a role in the foundation of any nation. Why? A little word called "citizenship". We'll explore it bellow.



She's dishonest for the simple fact that citizenship and active representation in the political system are the bare minimum of requisites for being considered a founder. As blacks, and I mean all blacks, had neither of these for nearly 70 years after the country was founded. It's impossible that they took a role in the foundation of anything. Why don't you try picking up a book on the basics of what it means to be a founder? Women didn't play a role in the foundation of this country either. How could they? They held none of the basic privileges which most citizens today take for granted. Neither did the French. Neither did Native Americans. It was 55 white guys who drafted a constitution establishing political and military supremacy over a given territory. Those 55 white guys granted themselves Founder status by the mere fact that they created the basic political operating framework for the country. If you don't want to accept this then that's up to you. World history disagrees with you. :shrug:.

By the way. If you do not believe me - you can look at the most basic piece of evidence validating my argument:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If some blacks were founders in any capacity, why did they need an amendment to guarantee them the same rights and privileges as the rest of the citizens and founders of this country? They must have been considered "3/5ths of a Founder".

So 55 white men wrote the documents and fought the wars, and financially supported the troops? I suppose the great minds of the Age of Reason had no input either? You know, the ones whose writings heavily influenced the FF? None of their wives supported their cause? To suppose that 55 white guys are the sole reason the USA exists today as a free country is bigotry and ignorance.
That kind of "reasoning" abounds amongst today's political leaders.

Go ahead, EXCLUDE the less than noteworthy efforts of the common man, and woman.

BTW, there was no "citizenship" at the time as there was no country....just an idea in the hearts and minds of ALL who opposed the King...
 
I'm sorry, but it sounds to me like the tea party wants the whole truth told. They're tired of kids being taught that the Founders were nothing but a bunch of racists. I was taught that the 3/5 Compromise was put in the Constitution because white people didn't think blacks were fully human. Do you understand how twisted that is to teach a child that? It's twisting history for an agenda.

Actually, no. The proposed law would not let textbooks say anything that puts the Founding Fathers in any sort of negative light. Inasmuch as slavery is negative, and some of the founders owned slaves, it's impossible to tell the whole truth while following this bill..

You were misinformed about the 3/5 compromise. That was put into place because the southern states wanted slaves to count as far as apportioning the House of Representatives, because counting the slaves would give them more representation than the north. Of course, they still weren't allowed to vote. The compromise was put in place to stop this blatant power grab by the south that would give slave owners more power.
 
I think the argument that there are black founders just floundered.

Well...we could teach that there were black founders of slavery in America...that would be consistent...right? Does the name Anthony Johnson resonate anywhere? Anyone recall being taught the history of slavery in America or for that matter around the world? I dont think we should eliminate American history...I think we should by damn go deeper. Teach a complete and fuller understanding of the practice...participants...and a little then and now might even be appropriate.
 
Actually, no. The proposed law would not let textbooks say anything that puts the Founding Fathers in any sort of negative light. Inasmuch as slavery is negative, and some of the founders owned slaves, it's impossible to tell the whole truth while following this bill..

You were misinformed about the 3/5 compromise. That was put into place because the southern states wanted slaves to count as far as apportioning the House of Representatives, because counting the slaves would give them more representation than the north. Of course, they still weren't allowed to vote. The compromise was put in place to stop this blatant power grab by the south that would give slave owners more power.

I agree with you that this bill is wrong. Far from restricting what is being taught they should teach more. Not just about the founding fathers, but about the practice of slavery in other parts of the world. Slavery as practiced in pre 1776 America. Black slave owners in America. Across the board. No one should be afraid of history. It simply teaches us what was. It is very important to teach a complete history and not just selected pieces/parts.
 
Well...we could teach that there were black founders of slavery in America...that would be consistent...right? Does the name Anthony Johnson resonate anywhere? Anyone recall being taught the history of slavery in America or for that matter around the world? I dont think we should eliminate American history...I think we should by damn go deeper. Teach a complete and fuller understanding of the practice...participants...and a little then and now might even be appropriate.

There were black Africans who sold their neighboring villagers to the Portuguese slave traders, sure. Blacks founding slavery in America? No, I don't think so.

Anthony Johnson was a black who owned land in Maryland in the 1600's, who died before the country was founded. I'm not sure why you're bringing him up in this context. Sure, there are many examples of free blacks going back before the founding of the nation. That doesn't make them founding fathers. .
 
There were black Africans who sold their neighboring villagers to the Portuguese slave traders, sure. Blacks founding slavery in America? No, I don't think so.

Anthony Johnson was a black who owned land in Maryland in the 1600's, who died before the country was founded. I'm not sure why you're bringing him up in this context. Sure, there are many examples of free blacks going back before the founding of the nation. That doesn't make them founding fathers. .

Anthony Johnson was the first person in the colonies to petition the commonwealth courts for the right to ownership of another human being. They granted hyis petition, thus Anthony Johnson was the first on record slaveholder (NOT indentured servitude) in the Colonies. To deny that and ignore that as being irrelevant is stupid. What...do you want to pretend the 'founding fathers did not actually inherit a tradition of slavery and instead instituted it upon the formatiuon of the United States? The fact is that slavery was already abolished in several states before the constitution was signed. The importation of slaves was banned long before Lincolns proclamation. There were a large number of black slaveholders in America, especially Lousiana.

Teach history...FULLY teach history. The US inherited a tradition. The founding fathers and subsequent generation of leaders in America moved to end slavery while this country was in its infancy. Every nation and people engaged in slavery and many today still do.

TEACH history. Not some slanted version of hystery that is agenda based. Anyone that wants to omit the roles of the founding fathers is wrong, as is anyone stupid enough to maintain it is a white European tradition.
 
Anthony Johnson was the first person in the colonies to petition the commonwealth courts for the right to ownership of another human being. They granted hyis petition, thus Anthony Johnson was the first on record slaveholder (NOT indentured servitude) in the Colonies. To deny that and ignore that as being irrelevant is stupid. What...do you want to pretend the 'founding fathers did not actually inherit a tradition of slavery and instead instituted it upon the formatiuon of the United States? The fact is that slavery was already abolished in several states before the constitution was signed. The importation of slaves was banned long before Lincolns proclamation. There were a large number of black slaveholders in America, especially Lousiana.

Teach history...FULLY teach history. The US inherited a tradition. The founding fathers and subsequent generation of leaders in America moved to end slavery while this country was in its infancy. Every nation and people engaged in slavery and many today still do.

TEACH history. Not some slanted version of hystery that is agenda based. Anyone that wants to omit the roles of the founding fathers is wrong, as is anyone stupid enough to maintain it is a white European tradition.

So, the first slave owner in America was a free black man?

I have to admit, I did not know that. You do make a good point about teaching all of history, warts and all.

Why you bring that up in a discussion about the founding fathers, I'm not sure, but it is an interesting bit of history, and something to tell the modern blacks who want to blame slavery and "whitey" for their lack of success.
 
So, the first slave owner in America was a free black man?

I have to admit, I did not know that. You do make a good point about teaching all of history, warts and all.

Why you bring that up in a discussion about the founding fathers, I'm not sure, but it is an interesting bit of history, and something to tell the modern blacks who want to blame slavery and "whitey" for their lack of success.

Because history does not exist in a vacuum. The 'Founding Fathers' inherited slavery. Slavery was a tradition of the day practiced across the globe. It wasnt right...it was an ugly tradition, however it is a historical fact. Aboriginal peoples in the Americas practiced slavery long before there where Europeans. Africans practiced it. Spaniards practiced it. The Foundign Fathers were human beings...people of their time...not some magical mystical people that were graced with supernatural ability to stop global practices. On the other hand there is direct evidence that the founding fathers DID make compromises (as do all politicians in the name of national unity while attempting to end the tradition of slavery. I find that inspirational, not shameful. I believe the COMPLETE history should be taught. I think it is significant for people to understand...Indians practiced slavery. Middle Easterners practiced slavery. People from the Slavic regions practiced slavery. The founding fathers were but a small part of history. Teach it all.
 
So 55 white men wrote the documents

Yes. This is the requirement for being a founder. Fighting in a war doesn't make you a founder. To believe otherwise would be like claiming that a run of the mill suicide bomber and Osama Bin Laden are both "leaders" within Islamism because they share ideology. Countries are founded by the men who write a country's guiding documents and establish citizenship. Not by the soldier. The soldier follows personal interest. Many of the white people from the colonies who fought in the war of independence followed their economic interest (at least as far as taxation was involved). It's been established fact that many of the blacks who joined the war effort on both sides did so under the promise that they would be freed. Rhetoric aside, it is personal interest that motivates the masses. If there had been no personal gain for the majority to gain independence from the British, we would be part of the commonwealth today.

and fought the wars, and financially supported the troops? I suppose the great minds of the Age of Reason had no input either? You know, the ones whose writings heavily influenced the FF? None of their wives supported their cause? To suppose that 55 white guys are the sole reason the USA exists today as a free country is bigotry and ignorance.

If we were to go by this reasoning we'd have to include Nicholo Machiavelli as a Founding Father of the US.

BTW, there was no "citizenship" at the time as there was no country....just an idea in the hearts and minds of ALL who opposed the King...

This is the ignorance I was talking about. The colonies most definitely had citizens even at the early colonial stages and they engaged in a direct democracy of sorts. These enclaves had Governors and people willing to take up the basic tasks of keeping the community legally functioning. Once again, blacks had absolutely no access to the same legal benefits that white citizens in these enclaves had. However, let's say for one second that you're right and some blacks founded this country. Why wasn't this recognized in the immidiate post-war period? Why weren't the rights all white male citizens in the country had granted to blacks? The answer is obvious. The Founding Fathers did not believe blacks were citizens or "Founders" and as racist as it may sound I agree with them but for different reasons. Nearly 50% of the Founders were slave owners. They had no interest in making blacks citizens or including them in the political process. I argue that blacks aren't founders because they were excluded from the political process for over 100 years after the country's foundation.
 
Yes. This is the requirement for being a founder. Fighting in a war doesn't make you a founder. To believe otherwise would be like claiming that a run of the mill suicide bomber and Osama Bin Laden are both "leaders" within Islamism because they share ideology. Countries are founded by the men who write a country's guiding documents and establish citizenship. Not by the soldier. The soldier follows personal interest. Many of the white people from the colonies who fought in the war of independence followed their economic interest (at least as far as taxation was involved). It's been established fact that many of the blacks who joined the war effort on both sides did so under the promise that they would be freed. Rhetoric aside, it is personal interest that motivates the masses. If there had been no personal gain for the majority to gain independence from the British, we would be part of the commonwealth today.



If we were to go by this reasoning we'd have to include Nicholo Machiavelli as a Founding Father of the US.



This is the ignorance I was talking about. The colonies most definitely had citizens even at the early colonial stages and they engaged in a direct democracy of sorts. These enclaves had Governors and people willing to take up the basic tasks of keeping the community legally functioning. Once again, blacks had absolutely no access to the same legal benefits that white citizens in these enclaves had. However, let's say for one second that you're right and some blacks founded this country. Why wasn't this recognized in the immidiate post-war period? Why weren't the rights all white male citizens in the country had granted to blacks? The answer is obvious. The Founding Fathers did not believe blacks were citizens or "Founders" and as racist as it may sound I agree with them but for different reasons. Nearly 50% of the Founders were slave owners. They had no interest in making blacks citizens or including them in the political process. I argue that blacks aren't founders because they were excluded from the political process for over 100 years after the country's foundation.

The states were totally subject to the King, a few intermediary levels of local government didn't end that...
Nearly all of those leaving Europe for the new world was leaving some kind of oppression behind.
They voted with their feet, even if they were not allowed to vote at the ballot box.
Blacks and women couldn't vote, but to say that ALL blacks and ALL women, and all indentured servants were just along for the ride is the true ignorance being displayed here...
 
There's nothing wrong Alfons, at least from you point of view which a human must qualify as a Western Christian

Holy crap...did you realize that slavery in Korea didnt end until 1894??? That Koreans engaged in slavery and human trafficking like all other peoples??? WTF??? I though that was solely an American thing begat by the founding fathers...who freqin knew???
 
Half of the people of Korea are still slaves. There is just one slave owner, but a lot of slaves.
 
Anthony Johnson was the first person in the colonies to petition the commonwealth courts for the right to ownership of another human being.

That's not what Johnson v Casor did. At all. Johnson's case involved whether or not he had indenture of a worker and his case pretty common at the time. What the case established was that blacks could in fact become slave owners. Slavery in the colonies was legal previous to that as its legality was established by the British not the commonwealth of Virginia. The mere fact that they were importing them by the boatload before Johnson v Casor should be all the proof one needs to determine whether or not slavery was legal.
 
Blacks and women couldn't vote, but to say that ALL blacks and ALL women, and all indentured servants were just along for the ride is the true ignorance being displayed here...

I've clearly stated that they weren't along for the ride. Were they supporters? Sure. Did they help expand the territory? Yes. Did they take part in fighting wars? Yes. Does any of that make them founders? No.
 
Holy crap part two...did you know that slavery not only existed in Africa long before the US continent was even FOUND by white Europeans (accepting of course the known reality that white Europeans only stumbled upon the continent accidentally but that aboriginal people were already here and PRACTICED SLAVERY) but that it is still commonly engaged in today??? Today...in AFRICA of all places!!! Not only that but that people in Africa slaughter each other by the millions with TODAY??? Who freqin knew??? Why isnt this more widely taught???
 
That's not what Johnson v Casor did. At all. Johnson's case involved whether or not he had indenture of a worker and his case pretty common at the time. What the case established was that blacks could in fact become slave owners. Slavery in the colonies was legal previous to that as its legality was established by the British not the commonwealth of Virginia. The mere fact that they were importing them by the boatload before Johnson v Casor should be all the proof one needs to determine whether or not slavery was legal.

Simple fact of life, Hatuey...every nation...every people...practiced slavery. The Founding Fathers were not immune to the pracitces handed down to them by colonial law and deny it all you want...maybe you can produce the previous case Johnson brought before the commonwealth courts that allowed for slavery.

Im all for tewaching history...every side of it...every angle of it. Teach the brutal history of white European slavery in America...just make sure ytyou also teach the brutal history of Indiuan slavery ling befoire there were white Europeans in America, and make sure you teach the brutal history of slavery in every other country. And by all means...teach what Africans have ALWAYS done and still do today.

History is not shameful nor should it be slanted. History teaches what was. So teach it. Every bit of it.
 
Half of the people of Korea are still slaves. There is just one slave owner, but a lot of slaves.

I understand your meaning but I think that dillutes the reality that Koreans were slave owners. Just as Brits...Arabs...Africans...Phillipinos...etc etc etc.

The only reason people promote certain segments of history is because they know how stupid their arguments look if they actually teach ALL of history. And I do not for some reason see an emphasis on the new England colonies and their attitude toward slavery even PRIOR to the formation of the country. Again...agendas...evil nasty little things.

Teach it all.
 
maybe you can produce the previous case Johnson brought before the commonwealth courts that allowed for slavery.

Here is a British case establishing the status of a slave when entering England:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_at_common_law#Shanley_v_Harvey

1729:

However, the decisions of Holt had caused sufficient consternation as to the legal status of slaves that some slave owners sought clarity of the law. In 1729 various slave owners obtained the Yorke–Talbot slavery opinion made by the Crown's principal law officers at one of the Inns of Court.[16] The law officers opined that under English law (i) a slave's status did not change when he came to England,[17] (ii) a slave could be compelled to return to the colonies from England, and (iii) that baptism would not manumit a slave. The opinion cited no authorities, and set out no legal rationale for the views expressed in it, but it was widely published and relied upon. One of the authors of the opinion, Lord Hardwicke (although at the time he was only known as Philip Yorke), subsequently endorsed the views expressed in the opinion (although not expressly referring to it) whilst sitting in judicial capacity in Pearne v Lisle (1749) Amb 75, 27 ER 47. The case revolved around title to fourteen slaves who were in Antigua, and involved a number of technical points as to colonial law. But Lord Hardwicke held that slavery was not contrary to English law, and that as the common law of England applied at the time to Antigua, that slavery was not unlawful in Antigua.[18]

The legality of slavery in the colonies was established by the British. Not by Johnson v Parker. We simply held on to the tradition and even fought 2 wars because of it.
 
Last edited:
I understand your meaning but I think that dillutes the reality that Koreans were slave owners. Just as Brits...Arabs...Africans...Phillipinos...etc etc etc.

The only reason people promote certain segments of history is because they know how stupid their arguments look if they actually teach ALL of history. And I do not for some reason see an emphasis on the new England colonies and their attitude toward slavery even PRIOR to the formation of the country. Again...agendas...evil nasty little things.

Teach it all.

Oh, yes, the human race has a long and proud history of slavery, as well as torture, and of warfare, with the history books being written by the slavers, the torturers, and the winners of the warfare.

So, by all means, let's do teach it all. People who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it, after all.
 
This is further evidence that the Tea Party are just right wing progressives who wish to use the government to impose their own particular viewpoint. Limited government? Yeah right! They are nothing but the Obamas of the far right.
 
Back
Top Bottom