Did R.E. Lee Commit Treason?

[CO. Hoosier]

I’m agreeing with goat here. You’re the one being dogmatic in your interpretation of her words.

She factually states it was made by white men. Whether you like that or not. Whether it rubs you the wrong way or not. It’s simple fact. And she states that fact because the text asserts all men are created equal but the word men refers only to white men. That is another simple fact.

There is no way these facts are divisive, in and of themselves. They are simply truth. Truth. Truth. I repeat, truth. This is not dogma, my friend. This is a fact. If you dispute it then you’re creating the division. And that division is division between those who accept the truth for what it is and those who don’t like that truth and so dispute it or call it divisive or whatever you want to do.

Incidentally what TJ wrote in his draft is irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. Because our country was not founded on the draft.

Of course her words are true. The manner in which she presents them are intended to be divisive. As one analogous example, many large cities are experiencing a spate of organized smash and grabs and shoplifting has become routine. We don’t report these crimes as being committed by Blacks. Why is that? Do you think Hanna-Jones would agree that we should report the race of these and other criminals simply because it’s true? I don’t think so either.

And it is true that the founders debated slavery as the Declaration was being drafted. It is True that many colonies had abolished slavery before the Declaration was signed. Neither of those truths are part of her writing. True?

 

[mushroomgod_1]

No, it's not the better question. The only question is, "Why are so many people so damn bothered by the idea of exploring the darker parts of our history and how they affect the present?"

That's the only question relevant to Leftists. Which is why Leftist dogma will never heal the racial divide.

 

[iuwclurker]

Of course her words are true. The manner in which she presents them are intended to be divisive. As one analogous example, many large cities are experiencing a spate of organized smash and grabs and shoplifting has become routine. We don’t report these crimes as being committed by Blacks. Why is that? Do you think Hanna-Jones would agree that we should report the race of these and other criminals simply because it’s true? I don’t think so either.

And it is true that the founders debated slavery as the Declaration was being drafted. It is True that many colonies had abolished slavery before the Declaration was signed. Neither of those truths are part of her writing. True?

Give me an example from the text I quoted showing divisive “manner.”

I don’t get that her intention is to divide at all. I get her intention to be wholly inclusive. That is to say she is trying to include black men in the category of men. It’s simple, COH. She is not trying to exclude white men from the category of men, or divide black men and white men into two entirely separate categories.

She is trying to include Black people as a historically integral part of the founding of the United States, which they were.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Hard to take you seriously when you paint such a farcical misinterpretation of what the 1619 project is but I will simply quote from the original essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones on the founding of our great nation as a point of departure for a sincere, serious discussion if you’re so willing.

“The United States is a nation founded on both an ideal and a lie. Our Declaration of Independence, approved on July 4, 1776, proclaims that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” did not apply to fully one-fifth of the country. Yet despite being violently denied the freedom and justice promised to all, black Americans believed fervently in the American creed. Through centuries of black resistance and protest, we have helped the country live up to its founding ideals. And not only for ourselves — black rights struggles paved the way for every other rights struggle, including women’s and gay rights, immigrant and disability rights.”

So COH, how about you explain how you see that is more dogmatic than factual and interpretive.

"But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them". Need I go on. Do you really think that those words are true? All of the white men, all of them, who drafted the Declaration can be painted with those words in classrooms of 8th grade American History students.

 

[iuwclurker]

"But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them". Need I go on. Do you really think that those words are true? All of the white men, all of them, who drafted the Declaration can be painted with those words in classrooms of 8th grade American History students.

That’s a good challenge, Rockport. I had to analyze it for a moment. You conveniently or otherwise omitted the ensuing words which are significant and answer your challenge.

"But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.”

You and presumably COH are saying that some of the signers believed Black people ought to be equal but had to compromise to get consensus. Believing something ought to be is not the same as believing something to be. Ought to be is hypothetical, being is actual. None of the signers of the declaration of independence believed it was actually making Black people equal at that point in time.

Again, she’s simply stating the truth. Thomas Jefferson himself did not with his John Hancock make all of his black slaves equal. He did not believe them to be equal at that point in time. In fact he knew full well they weren’t.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That’s a good challenge, Rockport. I had to analyze it for a moment. You conveniently or otherwise omitted the ensuing words which are significant and answer your challenge.

"But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.”

You and presumably COH are saying that some of the signers believed Black people ought to be equal but had to compromise to get consensus. Believing something ought to be is not the same as believing something to be. Ought to be is hypothetical, being is actual. None of the signers of the declaration of independence believed it was actually making Black people equal at that point in time.

Again, she’s simply stating the truth. Thomas Jefferson himself did not with his John Hancock make all of his black slaves equal. He did not believe them to be equal at that point in time. In fact he knew full well they weren’t.

This isn’t difficult. When your objective is to show white Americans as being racist slave-owners, or as those who willingly accept racist slave-ownership, you won’t include any contrary truths with your message. This is called advocacy. Advocacy, while true, is neither objective nor history and it’s a mistake to present it as both.

 

[iuwclurker]

It may be helpful to distinguish between two definitions of believe.

1.
accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
"the superintendent believed Lancaster's story"


2.
hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
"I believe we've already met"

While Thomas Jefferson may have held the opinion that Black people ought to be equal, he surely didn’t accept as true that they were equal before or after signing the declaration of independence.

 

[iuwclurker]

This isn’t difficult. When your objective is to show white Americans as being racist slave-owners, or as those who willingly accept racist slave-ownership, you won’t include any contrary truths with your message. This is called advocacy. Advocacy, while true, is neither objective nor history and it’s a mistake to present it as both.

In contrast to Rockport, not a particularly good challenge, COH.

First, she’s not advocating. (QED) That’s your sophistry, implying that she is.

Second, she’s not presenting a contrary truth.

Third, your paradigm for correct advocacy is nothing other than your paradigm for correct advocacy. Unless of course you can show me where it’s carved in stone…

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

That’s a good challenge, Rockport. I had to analyze it for a moment. You conveniently or otherwise omitted the ensuing words which are significant and answer your challenge.

"But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.”

You and presumably COH are saying that some of the signers believed Black people ought to be equal but had to compromise to get consensus. Believing something ought to be is not the same as believing something to be. Ought to be is hypothetical, being is actual. None of the signers of the declaration of independence believed it was actually making Black people equal at that point in time.

Again, she’s simply stating the truth. Thomas Jefferson himself did not with his John Hancock make all of his black slaves equal. He did not believe them to be equal at that point in time. In fact he knew full well they weren’t.

There was never - NEVER - a single second - NOT ONE TICK OF THE CLOCK - that the English colonies existed on this continent, or while the United States was being created, or after the United States was created, or at any time thereafter until the end of the Civil War and adoption of the post-war Constitutional amendments, when there were not full-blown abolitionists working hard to end slavery and working hard to educate slaves and former slaves. Dying in the process.

Yet 1619 and BLM and CRT functionally ignores them, and demands that all 21st century white Americans simply admit they are racist as the starting point of any discussion.

And are suprised when there is no discussion.

 

[TMFT]

This isn’t difficult. When your objective is to show white Americans as being racist slave-owners, or as those who willingly accept racist slave-ownership, you won’t include any contrary truths with your message. This is called advocacy. Advocacy, while true, is neither objective nor history and it’s a mistake to present it as both.

Which of the signers of the Constitution did not willingly accept slave ownership?

There is no contrary truth to that fact. There is no "both sides" to that argument. There surely were abolitionists among the framers. There were surely signers that hated slavery. But not a single signer was unwilling to accept it in the document.

 

[iuwclurker]

There was never - NEVER - a single second - NOT ONE TICK OF THE CLOCK - that the English colonies existed on this continent, or while the United States was being created, or after the United States was created, or at any time thereafter until the end of the Civil War and adoption of the post-war Constitutional amendments, when there were not full-blown abolitionists working hard to end slavery and working hard to educate slaves and former slaves. Dying in the process.

Yet 1619 and BLM and CRT functionally ignores them, and demands that all 21st century white Americans simply admit they are racist as the starting point of any discussion.

And are suprised when there is no discussion.

Gotta keep calling out sophistry as it comes.

I know of no rational thinker or actor on the American stage who denies or ignores the importance of white abolitionists in helping blacks achieve freedom at any point on this continent in the last hundred thousand years.

How about a citation of some legitimate sort?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

In contrast to Rockport, not a particularly good challenge, COH.

First, she’s not advocating. (QED) That’s your sophistry, implying that she is.

Second, she’s not presenting a contrary truth.

Third, your paradigm for correct advocacy is nothing other than your paradigm for correct advocacy. Unless of course you can show me where it’s carved in stone…

Sure she is advocating. She would probably agree if asked.

I have no idea what you mean about ”correct advocacy”. I think Hanna -Jones is a worthy advocate. I’d love to take her on one-on -one. That would be fun.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Which of the signers of the Constitution did not willingly accept slave ownership?

There is no contrary truth to that fact. There is no "both sides" to that argument. There surely were abolitionists among the framers. There were surely signers that hated slavery. But not a single signer was unwilling to accept it in the document.

So?

Were they supposed to commit suicide before creating a nation that had slavery in the southern states?

That is ignoring 160 years of pre-Constitution history and expecting 1770 Whitey to act like it was 1954.

1770 abolitionists faced death too.

1850 John Brown was tarred as insane, as was 1860 William Tecumseh Sherman - and many others who tried to make sense to the South, until they could no longer have that conversation.

But the 1776 choice between "no Constitution and the King's noose" and "a nation that might someday live up to the Declaration of Independence" was not some movie. It was a real decision. And they still had to win the War of 1812 after that to keep what little nation they had put on paper.

Its a easy call to use 20th century standards to say "they should not have agreed to let the south keep slavery." Buts it a fantasy.

Lincoln started out to save the union. He ended up keeping it AND ending slavery. Many these days think he was just another racist white supremacist.

 

[iuwclurker]

Sure she is advocating. She would probably agree if asked.

I have no idea what you mean about ”correct advocacy”. I think Hanna -Jones is a worthy advocate. I’d love to take her on one-on -one. That would be fun.

I’ll make myself clearer. When she is stating historical facts she is stating historical facts. She is not advocating those facts. (It doesn’t even make sense to advocate facts.)

She might be advocating for including those facts in a curriculum, for example, or in our discourse or whatever. In fact in the same text I linked she explicitly states what she is advocating in the 1619 Project:

The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative. Read all the stories.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

That’s a good challenge, Rockport. I had to analyze it for a moment. You conveniently or otherwise omitted the ensuing words which are significant and answer your challenge.

"But the white men who drafted those words did not believe them to be true for the hundreds of thousands of black people in their midst.”

You and presumably COH are saying that some of the signers believed Black people ought to be equal but had to compromise to get consensus. Believing something ought to be is not the same as believing something to be. Ought to be is hypothetical, being is actual. None of the signers of the declaration of independence believed it was actually making Black people equal at that point in time.

Again, she’s simply stating the truth. Thomas Jefferson himself did not with his John Hancock make all of his black slaves equal. He did not believe them to be equal at that point in time. In fact he knew full well they weren’t.

Your approach will create a generation that concludes that all Whites are racist and always have been. That the "Projects" are meaningless.

 

[iuwclurker]

So?

Were they supposed to commit suicide before creating a nation that had slavery in the southern states?

That is ignoring 160 years of pre-Constitution history and expecting 1770 Whitey to act like it was 1954.

1770 abolitionists faced death too.

1850 John Brown was tarred as insane, as was 1860 William Tecumseh Sherman - and many others who tried to make sense to the South, until they could no longer have that conversation.

But the 1776 choice between "no Constitution and the King's noose" and "a nation that might someday live up to the Declaration of Independence" was not some movie. It was a real decision. And they still had to win the War of 1812 after that to keep what little nation they had put on paper.

Its a easy call to use 20th century standards to say "they should not have agreed to let the south keep slavery." Buts it a fantasy.

Lincoln started out to save the union. He ended up keeping it AND ending slavery. Many these days think he was just another racist white supremacist.

None of that is relevant to the 1619 Project, the purpose of which is to include the contributions of blacks in our historical discourse.

 

[iuwclurker]

Your approach will create a generation that concludes that all Whites are racist and always have been. That the "Projects" are meaningless.

Unlax. We shouldn’t assume ignorant people are stupid. I certainly don’t believe that. I agree though, some small-minded people will believe stupid things.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

None of that is relevant to the 1619 Project, the purpose of which is to include the contributions of blacks in our historical discourse.

Inclusion is fine but being told that I am guilty of being a racist because of the color of my skin. That hurts and is happening.

 

[iuwclurker]

Inclusion is fine but being told that I am guilty of being a racist because of the color of my skin. That hurts and is happening.

Is it really happening? You got any quotes for me? I admit I’m not searching for them but they haven’t managed to turn up on my feed either.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Is it really happening? You got any quotes for me? I admit I’m not searching for them but they haven’t managed to turn up on my feed either.

No, I made it up. I am using race as a political issue. You are on to me.

 

[iuwclurker]

No, I made it up. I am using race as a political issue. You are on to me.

Lol

I was sincerely asking.

 

[TMFT]

So?

Were they supposed to commit suicide before creating a nation that had slavery in the southern states?

That is ignoring 160 years of pre-Constitution history and expecting 1770 Whitey to act like it was 1954.

1770 abolitionists faced death too.

1850 John Brown was tarred as insane, as was 1860 William Tecumseh Sherman - and many others who tried to make sense to the South, until they could no longer have that conversation.

But the 1776 choice between "no Constitution and the King's noose" and "a nation that might someday live up to the Declaration of Independence" was not some movie. It was a real decision. And they still had to win the War of 1812 after that to keep what little nation they had put on paper.

Its a easy call to use 20th century standards to say "they should not have agreed to let the south keep slavery." Buts it a fantasy.

Lincoln started out to save the union. He ended up keeping it AND ending slavery. Many these days think he was just another racist white supremacist.

I am absolutely not advocating holding 18th century people to 21st standards.

I was only pointing out that COH's point that we should include "contrary truths" to the absolute fact that the framers willingly accepted chattel slavery is absurd because it is categorically false.

Is it it not immeasurably better to admit that serious sins were committed along the way to all the advancements we've made in society? To ignore it is to miss out on a significant part of the discussion.

 

[tbone6004]

No. I don’t denigrate history. I denigrate and object to the 1619 Project on many levels. Mostly, as many historians have said, it’s simply wrong history. Moreover, it furthers the notion that skin color is density. Finally it’s a scam where Hannah-Jones (Like Kendi and Di Angelo) exploits racial conflict for personal gain of power, influence, and wealth.

How much of the 1619 Project have you actually read? I guarantee not one word. I am reading it now (by audiobook). The historical criticisms I have heard hold no water so far. (I am only a third of the way through it.) For example, one criticism was that it stated that slavery was the main reason for the revolutionary war. I have not heard any such statement. It is stated that the preservation of slavery was one reason that many slaveowners were so adamant in supporting the revolution. I think this was true but even more true in the War of 1812. The Dunmore offer is explored in depth also - the offer to slaves of their freedom if they fought for the King. It has some interesting stuff and things about race I really never considered. I have not got to the part about reparations which I disagree with personally. Unless you have read it your opinion is worthless.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

How much of the 1619 Project have you actually read? I guarantee not one word. I am reading it now (by audiobook). The historical criticisms I have heard hold no water so far. (I am only a third of the way through it.) For example, one criticism was that it stated that slavery was the main reason for the revolutionary war. I have not heard any such statement. It is stated that the preservation of slavery was one reason that many slaveowners were so adamant in supporting the revolution. I think this was true but even more true in the War of 1812. The Dunmore offer is explored in depth also - the offer to slaves of their freedom if they fought for the King. It has some interesting stuff and things about race I really never considered. I have not got to the part about reparations which I disagree with personally. Unless you have read it your opinion is worthless.

There’s more to 1619 than the 19 academic essays.

Ask them about their pre-drafted legislation. Unless you’ve read that too, hold that opinion.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It is stated that the preservation of slavery was one reason that many slaveowners were so adamant in supporting the revolution.

Get back to me when you get to the part about the colonies that abolished slavery after 1776.

 

[tbone6004]

How much of the 1619 Project have you actually read? I guarantee not one word. I am reading it now (by audiobook). The historical criticisms I have heard hold no water so far. (I am only a third of the way through it.) For example, one criticism was that it stated that slavery was the main reason for the revolutionary war. I have not heard any such statement. It is stated that the preservation of slavery was one reason that many slaveowners were so adamant in supporting the revolution. I think this was true but even more true in the War of 1812. The Dunmore offer is explored in depth also - the offer to slaves of their freedom if they fought for the King. It has some interesting stuff and things about race I really never considered. I have not got to the part about reparations which I disagree with personally. Unless you have read it your opinion is worthless.

So I was right. You haven't read any of it. But you are the expert on it.