That's a really interesting point, law at the time actually prevented him from freeing a lot of his slavers because they were married to Martha's slaves. His heirs also were against them being freed. We can't really know what family or legal pressure was being applied.He made his new will freeing his slaves in the Summer of 1799, and died in December, falling seriously ill and dead within a day. Good point.
Out of the Southern Founding Fathers, he freed the most significant and substantial portion of his slaves vs his counterparts, (Northerners also freed their slaves but arguably, the economic impact on them was probably much less than on Washington). A quick look at Wikipedia shows Robert Carter freed the most slaves in this time period, but faced resistance from the law, and his heirs but it was successful through it took a long time.
Its also notable to note that freeing slaves occurred due to rising costs for upkeep, so probably some portions of those freeing slaves were motivated with no longer having to take care of them. In that sense, Robert Carter and Washington's wills did attempt to ensure the freedmen would get assistance from the estate beyond what was mandated by law.
Through both could have just sold off their estates to fund the freeing of slaves. I wonder how much resistance their heirs would have offered, and if they could overturn those decisions, had they occur?
The Founders knew better and Pete does as well.
Portraying slavery as some whoopsie daisy rather than evil and massive economic exploitation justified and maintained by racist theories of white supremacy is bullshit.
7. Also the question was put what should be done concerning him who led away a Christian man and then sold him; and the reply of all was that he should be guilty of homicide.
27. Let no one presume for the future to enter into that nefarious business by which they were accustomed hitherto to sell men like brute animals in England.
http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/06922752100647273089079/p0000026.htm (Google translate)Item: We order and command that from now on, for no cause of war or any other, even if it is a title of rebellion, or by ransom or otherwise, no Indian slave can be made, and we want them to be treated as our vassals of the [royal] crown of Castile, they are.
No person can use the Indians by way of naboria, or tapia, or any other way, against their will.
As we have commanded to provide that hereby by no means the Indian slaves are made, I yearned for those that have been made up to this point against reason and right, and against the provisions and instructions given, we order and command that absentees, called the parties, without question, summarily and briefly, only the known truth, release them, if the people who turned them into slaves do not show title how they have them and rightfully possess them; and because in the absence of people requesting the aforementioned, the Indians do not remain unfairly slaves, we order that the absentee put people who follow the Indians for this cause, and be paid for camera penalties, and be men of trust and diligence.
Christ seeks souls, not property. ... He who wants a large part of mankind to be such that ... he may act like a ferocious executioner toward them, press them into slavery, and through them grow rich, is a despotic master, not a Christian; a son of Satan, not of God; a plunderer, not a shepherd.
Their reason for killing and destroying such an infinite number of souls is that the Christians have an ultimate aim, which is to acquire gold, and to swell themselves with riches in a very brief time and thus rise to a high estate disproportionate to their merits.
The Indians were totally deprived of their freedom and were put into the harshest, fiercest, most horrible servitude and captivity which no one who has not seen it can understand. Even beasts enjoy more freedom when they are allowed to graze in the field.
Dig up stupid.My money is on they knew it, Pete. You dummy. Is it possible to have less than 0 percent of the black vote? He's trying to find out.
In Defense of the Indians (1548) by Bartolomé de las Casas - 184 years before George Washington was born
People didn't know any better in 2014. /s
Right, and the colonists also killed the viceroy who was meant to employ the law stopping slavery of the Native Indians in the first place. I'm not trying to present Spain as good and the US as evil.You do know once they exhausted the supply of native labor (between disease and conditions) they went ahead imported enslaved Africans right? The Crown in Spain absolutely had their own selfish reasons for passing these laws, including tightening control over the colonies, not enslaving them in order to turn them into good Catholics (genocide), and ensure the labor supply didn't die off.
That's a really interesting point, law at the time actually prevented him from freeing a lot of his slavers because they were married to Martha's slaves. His heirs also were against them being freed. We can't really know what family or legal pressure was being applied.
Right, and the colonists also killed the viceroy who was meant to employ the law stopping slavery of the Native Indians in the first place. I'm not trying to present Spain as good and the US as evil.
What I'm trying to point out is that no one was ignorant of what they were doing even before the founding fathers of the USA; slavery wasn't a whoopsie or a holdover from a more foolish age. There were people who wanted slavery because they gained from it, and they fought against the efforts to stop or curb slavery.
Ah that's right.Not exactly that law prevented that (slave marriage was no consideration legally and rarely considered by slaveowners) he was reluctant to free those he owned personally without attaining the freedom of the slaves' family, many of whom were owned by Martha's family and heirs. He either never got the money to do so, or couldn't convince them to free them. Robert Carter basically willed his remaining slaves to a attorney who continued the long-term manumission and administration of the estate, and incurred a lawsuit by his heirs against the attorney to regain ownership.
"Reports are just in that Buttigieg's support among black voters has jumped to a record-breaking 65535%."This is actually part of a very clever strategy.
If he can get his support among black voters low enough it'll overflow and wrap back around to 99%.
I highly, highly doubt anyone has seriously said gay people can't be racist but if you can prove me wrong I'd love (well, wouldn't love but you know) to see it.im glad this forum seems to be coming to its senses after giving him the benefit of the doubt (because he's gay and gay people can't be racist) the 800 other time he said something evil
That's an excellent point. If you're a white Christian in this country, particularly a white Christian with a decent education in American history, you ought to make yourself aware of how dominant religious movements in this country were birthed and nurtured precisely to provide a scrap of moral cover for slavery, genocide of native people, and white imperialism.Slave owners were so aware what they were doing was evil and inhumane, that their ministers invented the myth of black people being the cursed offspring of Caanan in order to "justify" the african slave trade from a religious perspective. This is relevant to this conversation, because Pete also identifies as a christian. And this is an enormous part of the legacy of christianity in this country.
Geez, even Washington knew it was wrong, Lafeyette had a whole thing with him trying to free his slaves without bankrupting himself.
Also, the founders were famous for deep debates. You think the "con" side of the 3/5ths comprompise people didn't get their point across? I'm sure as hell they did.
That's a really interesting point, law at the time actually prevented him from freeing a lot of his slavers because they were married to Martha's slaves. His heirs also were against them being freed. We can't really know what family or legal pressure was being applied.
I take solace in the fact that there's no way in hell this guy is getting the nom. Hopefully the next viable queer candidate someday will have a better head on their shoulders.As an lgbt person it makes me ashamed that he is the top gay candidate right now.
Us gays can do better. Us gays should know better.
I don't believe this is true.He did, he inherited them, and he evolved his opinions on it over time, freed the slaves he owned, provided for their welfare, and spoke about the essential moral bankruptcy of the institution.
The ability to admit you were wrong and then work to improve the situation as best you can is a sign of strong character.
He stipulated that his slaves that were married to Martha's slaves were to be released together so the families weren't broken up.I don't believe this is true.
Washington stipulated in his will that most of Martha and his slaves were not to be released until her Martha's death.
Even though he knew it was wrong, he did not want to inconvenience or make a real sacrifice for himself or his living heirs.
I have a hard time squaring that with your description of Washington having a strong character in that regard.
Dumpster fireIt looks like it's from 2014. So recent enough that he should know better.
True, but Pete has been prepping for this run since at least middle school.That video was 2 years before Trump became President according to a post above yours.
Let's not wax poetic about good old George. He was raping Black women and girls. Is this a "he rapes but he saves" thing?He did, he inherited them, and he evolved his opinions on it over time, freed the slaves he owned, provided for their welfare, and spoke about the essential moral bankruptcy of the institution.
The ability to admit you were wrong and then work to improve the situation as best you can is a sign of strong character.
He's a corporate product.I guess Pete must have fell asleep during the screenings of 1776 in school.
Pete's so damn slimy.
Umm, what?Let's not wax poetic about good old George. He was raping Black women and girls. Is this a "he rapes but he saves" thing?
Let's not wax poetic about good old George. He was raping Black women and girls. Is this a "he rapes but he saves" thing?
There's nothing to expand on. Slaveowners were rapists and sex traffickers.
Rape wasn't reported, so it didn't happen? This is the argument we're making in 2020?I've been looking for a source for the GW rapes as you stated but I haven't been able to find one. Multiple sources have reported that there was never any register of that happening. Do you have a source?
and
" It was never recorded that George Washington sexually abused any of his slaves, but Betty was still vulnerable to exploitation by other men at Mount Vernon, as well as at the White House plantation. " Source 22
I've been looking for a source for the GW rapes as you stated but I haven't been able to find one. Multiple sources have reported that there was never any register of that happening. Do you have a source?
and
" It was never recorded that George Washington sexually abused any of his slaves, but Betty was still vulnerable to exploitation by other men at Mount Vernon, as well as at the White House plantation. " Source 22
Umm, no one is making that argument, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that Washington raped his slaves...which is what your sources say.There's nothing to expand on. Slaveowners were rapists and sex traffickers.
Rape wasn't reported, so it didn't happen? This is the argument we're making in 2020?
There's nothing to expand on. Slaveowners were rapists and sex traffickers.
Rape wasn't reported, so it didn't happen? This is the argument we're making in 2020?
If they didn't know it was bad then why didn't they become slaves? Surely one of these people would have tried it out.
There is no register of Trump working with the Russians to hack and steal the election either.
This line of thinking always felt like the grandchild of the white man's burden arguement
Umm, no one is making that argument, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that Washington raped his slaves...which is what your sources say.
Motherfuckers had just fought a war against a supriror power but when it came time to free slaves
Umm, no one is making that argument, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence at all that Washington raped his slaves...which is what your sources say.
I'm not attacking you. Look at the institution of slavery and the rampant, systematic sexual violence that went hand in hand with it. You couldn't pay me to extend the benefit of the doubt to George Washington. A violent wealthy man that owned 200... rape really was not above his character. I'm sure there were slave brothels back then too.When you post things as facts I would think you would have a source on it. If you'd like to attack me instead, that's your prerogative. It's a big statement you made.
But there is?
This line of thinking always felt like the grandchild of the white man's burden arguement