US History

Smallpox Blanket Myths and Truths

Published by Papa Giorgio

Updated a bit…

Elizabeth A. Fenn

Usually treated as an isolated anomaly, the Fort Pitt episode itself points to the possibility that biological warfare was not as rare as it might seem. It is conceivable [e.g., makes for good suspense and is merely a guess with no historical proof], of course, that when Fort Pitt personnel gave infected articles to their Delaware visitors on June 24, 1763, they acted on some earlier communication from Amherst that does not survive today.8

[8] Such a communication might have been either written or oral in form. It is also possible that documents relating to such a plan were deliberately destroyed.

→ In other words, it’s anybody’s guess if this is real history OR an author’s guess.

Even the HISTORY CHANNEL at the worst says this of the “event”:

  • For all the outrage the account has stirred over the years, there’s only one clearly documented instance of a colonial attempt to spread smallpox during the war, and oddly, Amherst probably didn’t have anything to do with it. There’s also no clear historical verdict on whether the biological attack even worked.

They continue with the “did it work” line of reasoning:

It’s not clear smallpox-infected blankets even worked.

It’s also not clear whether or not the attempt at biological warfare had the intended effect. According to Fenn’s article, the Native Americans around Fort Pitt were “struck hard” by smallpox in the spring and summer of 1763. “We can’t be sure,” Kelton says. Around that time, “we know that smallpox was circulating in the area, but they [Native Americans] could have come down with the disease by other means.”

Historian Philip Ranlet of Hunter College and author of a 2000 article on the smallpox blanket incident in Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies, also casts doubt. “There is no evidence that the scheme worked,” Ranlet says. “The infection on the blankets was apparently old, so no one could catch smallpox from the blankets. Besides, the Indians just had smallpox—the smallpox that reached Fort Pitt had come from Indians—and anyone susceptible to smallpox had already had it.”

The most important indication that the scheme was a bust, Ranlet says, “is that Trent would have bragged in his journal if the scheme had worked. He is silent as to what happened.”

Even if it didn’t work, British officers’ willingness to contemplate using smallpox against the Indians was a sign of their callousness. “Even for that time period, it violated civilized notions of war,” says Kelton, who notes that disease “kills indiscriminately—it would kill women and children, not just warriors.”

The “Smallpox Blanket” Myth, via Ernest W. Adams

…Now, about these smallpox blankets.

During the Siege of Fort Pitt in 1763 — 13 years before American independence — Delaware and Shawnee Indians, aroused by Pontiac’s Rebellion, attacked Fort Pitt, which was near modern day Pittsburgh. Shortly after the siege began, British General Jeffrey Amherst wrote to Colonel Henry Bouquet, who was preparing to lead a party of troops to relieve the siege, “Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them.” Bouquet agreed, but there is no evidence that he actually carried out the suggestion, and he indicated in a letter that he was afraid he could contract smallpox himself.

However, those besieged in the fort had already, of their own initiative, tried to infect the besiegers with smallpox and failed. During a parley, the fort’s leader, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, gave blankets and a handkerchief from a smallpox ward to two of the native American delegates, Turtleheart and Mamaltee. However, the effort evidently failed, because they came back for further talks a month later with no signs of disease, and smallpox normally shows signs within two weeks. Furthermore Turtleheart was one of the signatories in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix five years later. Modern historians believe that the blankets had been unused for too long, and any virus present on the blankets would have already died. It is also possible that the Delaware Indians who were given the blankets were immune through prior contact. Smallpox kills 30-35% of those who get it; those who survive are immune from then on.

One thing that is certain is that many native Americans had already contracted smallpox in the ordinary way, unintentionally though contacts with infected whites. There is no example of an outbreak in the Fort Pitt region following the siege. There is a documented outbreak elsewhere in the region among a different people, the Lenape, who had attacked a white settlement where smallpox was present.

So, in conclusion:

  • Infecting people with smallpox was not US government policy or practice, and the only effort to do so occurred prior to US independence.
  • The Fort Pitt event was undertaken by Captain Simeon Ecuyer of the British army on his own initiative; it was neither official British policy or official army policy. In fact, King George III’s Royal Proclamation of 1763 banned colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountains because that territory belonged to the native Americans.
  • There is no evidence that it succeeded; there is some evidence that it failed, as the people given the blankets are known to have survived.

And another post by Beyond Highbrow – Robert Lindsay has the common sense commentary about the incident:

…Although we do not know how the plan worked out, modern medicine suggests that it could not possibly have succeeded. Smallpox dies in several minutes outside of the human body. So obviously if those blankets had smallpox germs in them, they were dead smallpox germs. Dead smallpox germs don’t transmit smallpox.

In addition to the apparent scientific impossibility of disease transmission, there is no evidence that any Indians got sick from the blankets, not that they could have anyway. The two Delaware chiefs who personally received the blankets were in good health later. The smallpox epidemic that was sweeping the attacking Indians during this war started before the incident. The Indians themselves said that they were getting smallpox by attacking settler villages infected with smallpox and then bringing it back to their villages.

So, it’s certain that one British commander (British – not even an American, mind you), and not even the one usually accused, did give Indians what he mistakenly thought were smallpox-infected blankets in the course of a war that was genocidal on both sides.

Keep in mind that the men who did this were in their forts, cut off from all supplies and reinforcements, facing an army of genocidal Indians who were more numerous and better armed than they were, Indians who were given to killing all defenders whether they surrendered or not.

If a fort was overwhelmed, all Whites would be immediately killed, except for a few who were taken prisoner by the Indians so they could take them back to the Indian villages to have some fun with them. The fun consisted of slowly torturing the men to death over a 1-2 day period while the women and children watched, laughed and mocked the helpless captives.  So, these guys were facing, if not certain death, something pretty close to that.

And no one knows if any Indians at all died from the smallpox blankets (and modern science apparently says no one could have died anyway). I say the plan probably didn’t even work and almost certainly didn’t kill any of the targeted Indians, much less 50% of them. Yes, the myth says that Amherst’s germ warfare blankets killed 50% of the attacking Indians!

Another example of a big fat myth/legend/historical incident, that, once you cut it open – well, there’s nothing much there…

Quick Summations of the 1619 Project

Published by Papa Giorgio

The Architects of Woke series takes aim at far-left post-modernist and Marxist thinkers and activists responsible for the spread of identity politics from college campuses to society at large. “The 1619 Project’s Fake History”, covers the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project. Directed by Nikole Hannah-Jones, the project attempts to reframe our understanding of American history by alleging the central event in the founding of the United States was the first importation of enslaved Africans to Virginia in 1619 and not the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The project has been notably criticized by esteemed historians for its factual errors. Despite this, schools across the nation have embedded the 1619 Project into their curriculums, perhaps endangering our nation’s understanding of its founding for generations to come…

Allen Guelzo joined The Buck Sexton Show shortly before the Pulitzer Prize Foundation announced that Nikole Hannah-Jones would be receiving the award for her 1619 essay. The NYT’s 1619 Project has been criticized by leading historians for its many factual inaccuracies.

Arthur Milikh joined the Ed Morrissey Show on Hot Air to debunk the myths outlined in the NYT’s 1619 Project and tell the true story about America’s founding.

What Isn’t Taught During Black History Month (Larry Elder)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder takes the opportunity this Black History Month to investigate certain myths surrounding Black history and why some people think Black History Month is not necessary. Topics:

  • Slavery;
  • Gun Control;
  • Minimum Wage.

(Also see my voluminous post on RACIAL MANTRAS)

Ted Cruz Whomps Pete Buttigieg Regarding Slavery

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ted Cruz explains the lack of historical knowledge in Pete Buttigieg’s indoctrinating response to kids (hat-tip to RIGHT SCOOP):

Here are other responses from Ted:

RIGHT SCOOP notes about the above:

  • And the list could go on and on. These men were brilliant, especially by today’s dumbed down standards. For Buttigieg to suggest they didn’t know that slavery was bad or that they didn’t respect civil rights is preposterous and it just shows how much of an idiot he really is.

PJ-MEDIA joins in the chorus of disappointment regarding our educational system:

  • If by some bizarre turn of events Pete Buttigieg becomes president of the United States, he would likely not be the first product of our shoddy, heavily politicized, and frankly anti-American educational system to enter the Oval Office without any understanding of or appreciation for the greatness of the office he now occupied, and its illustrious history. The first was Barack Hussein Obama. How many more such presidents can the free republic that Jefferson, Madison, and the rest bequeathed to us afford to have?

Karen Finney Hangs Up on Hugh Hewitt After Failing History

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally Posted: Aug 28, 2013

More on Alger Hiss via WND:

Former U.S. State Department official Alger Hiss was the darling of the Franklin Roosevelt Democrats and the architect of the United Nations.

That he was also a Soviet spy remains one of the most well-guarded secrets of the 20th century.

But a new book, “Alger Hiss: Why He Chose Treason,” shatters the veil of secrecy so well maintained by “progressives” in the Democratic Party and a complicit media establishment.

It all began unraveling in 1948, when Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy. Because the statute of limitations on espionage had run out, he was convicted only of perjury. Decades later – after the Hiss trial had been long forgotten by most – archival evidence surfaced confirming the accusations: a public servant with access to classified documents had indeed passed crucial information to the Soviets for more than a decade.

Yet many on the American Left still consider Hiss an iconic figure – an innocent victim accused of unsubstantiated crimes. They prefer to focus on the collectivist ideals Hiss stood for, rather than confront the reality of a man who systematically and methodically betrayed his country.

[….]

Why exactly were the intellectual elite so determined that Hiss was innocent? His accuser, Time magazine senior editor Whittaker Chambers – originally Hiss’s Soviet handler and author of the classic “Witness” – presented compelling written evidence. However, the intelligentsia were intent on supporting one of their own. They ignored the facts, a willful blindness that helped contribute to a polarization still in place in our country today.

Thirty years of intelligence analysis gives Shelton the expertise to approach the story from many different angles, especially:

  • Her persuasive argument that communism and fascism are not polar opposites, as has so long been claimed, but highly similar ideologies.
  • How Hiss’s central role at the Yalta Conference and the founding of the United Nations are examples of the significance of Soviet intelligence recruitment of high-level Americans who could influence U.S. foreign policy in their favor.
  • Why the silence surrounding the implications of Hiss’s espionage continues—and why apologists fear that smearing his name would undercut New Deal policies and the United Nations. Shelton doesn’t just detail the body of evidence pointing to Hiss’s guilt; she suggests new layers of meaning in light of the current political landscape……

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

The stroy about the Rosenbergs saw new light when the two sons of the Rosenbergs asked Obama to exonerate their mother (NEWSMAX). The AMERICAN THINKER notes the continued Lefty accolades of Ethel…

In its latest fit of leftist madness, the City of New York again displayed its colors when its City Council enacted a resolution honoring convicted and executed spy Ethel Rosenberg on the centenary of her birth. The council declared September 28 “Ethel Rosenberg Day of Justice in the Borough of Manhattan.”

The council’s proclamation heralded Ethel for her “great bravery” and asserted that she had been “wrongfully” executed for joining her husband Julius in giving atomic secrets to Stalin’s Soviet regime. “A lot of hysteria was created around anti-communism and how we had to defend our country,” lamented Councilman Daniel Dromm, “we rushed to judgment and they [the Rosenbergs] were executed.” Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer added her regrets, condemning this “terrible stain on our country.”

There could scarcely be a more apt gesture from a city that long housed the Communist Party USA, the Daily Worker, and Columbia University. New York was home to more communists than any city in America, and its current mayor, Democrat Bill De Blasio, once peddled subscriptions for the newspaper of the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua before later honeymooning in Castro’s Cuba — a decade after his earlier romance in the Soviet Union…..

Here is an old one pager (2005) I wrote regarding the Rosenbergs… followed by an excerpt about them from another post:

WERE THEY SPIES? Julius and Ethel Rosenberg

The Rosenbergs are often pointed to as an example of the government being too overbearing.  And people on the political left – more often than not – take this position in public discourse.  Often it has imbued in the premise of the Rosenberg’s illusions to the McCarthy era as well as a disdain for the political right. 

However, in recent years many documents have been declassified, and these documents along with a plethora of once secret documents from the now defunct U.S.S.R. show that not only McCarthy, but also others who saw a Marxist conspiracy were actually right in their investigations.  In fact, these documents from Russia and the KGB show the problem was worse than McCarthy had thought!  As one author put it:  “McCarthy was making a good point badly.”

Case in point: the Rosenbergs (4-points of rebuttal):

  • In 1995 the government declassified the Venona cables, which proved definitively that Julius and Ethel were part of a sophisticated network of communist traitors. 
  • And if the Venona messages weren’t enough, Aleksander Feklisov, the former KGB colonel, really sealed the deal.  While Venona was comprised of documents decoded by American cryptanalysts, no messages from the KGB itself proved the Rosenbergs’ guilt.  But then Feklisov, who personally handled the Rosenberg case, admitted that he recruited Julius to spy for the U.S.S.R. in 1943.  Feklisov and Julius had fifty meetings, and Julius gave Feklisov valuable military information.  Further, Feklisov said that Ethel knew about her husband’s spying.  (Incidentally, the KGB’s codename for Julius was ”Liberal.”)
  • The evidence does not end here.  In 1990 Nikita Khrushchev published his memoirs in which he praised the Rosenbergs for their ”very significant help in accelerating the production of our atomic bomb.”
  • Additionally, during the Rosenbergs’ trial, the defense—that is, the people who were trying to keep the Rosenbergs’ Red flesh off the electric chair—asked the media to leave the courtroom while David Greenglass, the guy who had allegedly fed Julius and Ethel the secret information, detailed to the court what he had shared with the accused.  If Greenglass hadn’t broken the law, and if, therefore, the Rosenbergs hadn’t, why would reporters have to leave?

Two books that are a good read:

  • Blacklisted by History: the Real Story of Joseph McCarthy and the Fight Against America’s Enemies, by M Stanton Evans.
  • The Venona Secrets: Exposing America’s Cold War Traitors, by Herb Romerstein.

Here is that excerpt from my: “Howard Zinn (1922-2010) Passing From This Hell To The Next“

Which causes one to ask JUST HOW GOOD is Zinn’s historical “narrative” from his Marxist “red colored glasses”? Reason.com asks the same question, “JUST HOW POOR IS ZINN’S HISTORY?“

They then answer it:

…After hearing of his death, I opened one of his books to a random page (Failure to Quit, p. 118) and was informed that there was “no evidence” that Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya was behind the 1986 bombing of La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Whatever one thinks of the Reagan administration’s response, it is flat wrong, bordering on dishonest, to argue that the plot wasn’t masterminded in Tripoli. Nor is it correct to write that the American government, which funded the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, “train[ed] Osama bin Laden,” a myth conclusively debunked by Washington Post correspondent Steve Coll in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Ghost Wars.

Of Cuba, the reader of A People’s History is told that upon taking power, “Castro moved to set up a nationwide system of education, of housing, of land distribution to landless peasants.” Castro’s vast network of gulags and the spasm of “revolutionary justice” that sent thousands to prison or the executioners wall is left unmentioned. This is unsurprising, I suppose, when one considers that Zinn recently told an interviewer “you have to admire Cuba for being undaunted by this colossus of the North and holding fast to its ideals and to Socialism….Cuba is one of those places in the world where we can see hope for the future. With its very meager resources Cuba gives free health care and free education to everybody. Cuba supports culture, supports dance and music and theatre.”

There is also no mention of the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot, though in a misleading digression into the so-called Mayaguez Incident, Zinn mentions that “a revolutionary regime had just taken power” in Cambodia and treated its American prisoners rather well. And it is untrue, as Zinn claims, that President Gerald Ford knew Cambodia had released its American captives in 1975 but still allowed a small Marine invasion simply to show American muscle after the Vietnam humiliation.

A People’s History is full of praise for supposedly forgotten truth-tellers like “Dalton Trumbo and Pete Seeger, and W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson,” all apologists for Stalinism. (Both Du Bois and Robeson were awarded the Stalin/Lenin Peace Prize by the Kremlin, and both enthusiastically accepted.) There is no accounting of communism’s crimes, though plenty of lamentations that, after the Second World War, “young and old were taught that anti-Communism was heroic.” Indeed, in the comic book version of A People’s History, Zinn writes that the Cold War “would last for over 40 years” but “to keep it going required political and social repression on both sides” (emphasis in original).

Despite conclusive evidence from Russian archives, Zinn suggests the atom spies Morton Sobel and Julius Rosenberg were railroaded with “weak” evidence and their subsequent trials were simply to show “what lay at the end of the line for those the government decided were traitors.” When Sobel confessed his espionage to the The New York Times earlier this year, Zinn told a reporter, “To me it didn’t matter whether they were guilty or not.”

This is a strange sentiment for someone whose job, one assumes, is to mine the historical record in search of historical truth. But Zinn wasn’t, as Schlesinger correctly said, a historian in any traditional sense. Zinn abjured footnotes (there are a number of quotes in A People’s History that I couldn’t verify), his books consist of clip jobs, interviews, and recycled material from A People’s History, and he was more likely to be found protesting on Boston Common than holding office hours at Boston University. But it is clear that those who have praised his work do so because they appreciate his conclusions, while ignoring his shoddy methodology.

This helps explain why few of his acolytes mention the effusive blurbs Zinn provided for David Ray Griffin’s two books of 9/11 conspiracy theories, Debunking 9/11 and The New Pearl Harbor, or why A People’s History uses the work of Holocaust denier David Irving to inflate the civilian death toll at Dresden….

They end this “eulogy” with this thought, “Call him what you will—activist, dissident, left-wing muckraker. Just don’t call him a historian.”

President Trump’s Letter To Speaker Pelosi (Read by Hugh Hewitt)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hugh Hewitt took the time to read the entire letter from President Trump to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (If you wish, the entire letter is below for your reading pleasure)

Letter From President Trump… by charliespiering on Scribd

A Brief History Of Democrats Impeaching Trump (LOLZ)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hugh Hewitt is right, it seems to be a fetish with lefty Democrats. The entire article is worth the time… but here are three of the attempted impeachments from THE FEDERALIST:

A Brief History Of Trump’s Many ‘Impeachable Offenses’

On Twitter, Phil Kerpen posted a helpful list of all the Democrats who supported these impeachment votes. Let’s review them.

Back in December 2017, 58 Democrats voted to advance articles of impeachment for criticizing NFL players who knelt in protest during the national anthem. Rep. Al Green, who drafted the articles, said at the time that Trump, “by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office.”

Rep. Jim McGovern, who managed the floor debate for Thursday’s impeachment vote, said the Ukraine allegations “are as serious as it gets.” But are they? McGovern was among those who voted to impeach Trump for complaining about NFL players.

A month later, in January 2018, Green again brought forward articles of impeachment, this time because Trump described some nations as “sh-thole countries.” This time around, 66 Democrats voted for impeachment, including McGovern (again) and Rep. Maxine Waters, now chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

On Thursday, Waters, who has previously called on her supporters to harass Trump officials in public, said, “I look forward to Democrats and Republicans alike prioritizing country over party.”

The third impeachment vote was even more successful than the first two: 95 Democrats voted for it in July 2019—more than 40 percent of the caucus. Trump’s “high crime” this time around was that he tweeted some mean things about the Squad. He’d said Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna S. Pressley and Rashida Tlaib should “go back” to their home countries if they don’t like America (all the congresswomen except Omar were born in the United States).

All four of them were among the 95 Democrats who voted for impeachment in July, as was House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler. On Thursday, Nadler said it’s the “solemn duty of the Congress to investigate serious allegations against the president.” Okay.

Ted Cruz Educates Alyssa Milano On The Bible/Constitution

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATE:

NOQ has this interesting response by Ted Cruz to Alyssa Milano’s Tweet… first their set up:

Professional Hollywood radical progressive activist Alyssa Milano has taken her war against conservatism and common sense to the gun arena as she’s now their leading gun control advocate. At least that’s what one can glean from her recent Tweets. Her vision of how she will run the country when she’s finally in control has shifted over the years as she’s gone from #MeToo headmaster to open borders spokesperson, from proud double-abortion princess to her current position as lead interrogator in the fictional NRA trial.

She’s even attacking Bible-believers for their defense of the 2nd Amendment.

[….]

Did someone say “Bible” and “guns” in the same sentence? Cue Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) who happens to be a devout Christian and Constitutional scholar. His 10-Tweet reply was a master’s course on why you shouldn’t try to attack the Bible with the Constitution and visa versa:

Here is the exchange put into order by (*breathes on finger nails, polished them on my tattered morning shirt) myself:

The Betsy Ross Flag vs Michael Eric Dyson

Published by Papa Giorgio

Prior to the 4th, Michael Medved recaps with his “Golden Turkey Award” the insane positions taken by the Left regarding the Betsy Ross flag and our Nation’s Founding.

3 Ignorant Myths About The Betsy Ross Flag, Dispelled (THE FEDERALIST):

….Men, women, rich, poor, black and white—all fought and made sacrifices for the principles and aspirations that this flag represents. After the last major battle of the American Revolution, Congress deepened the flag’s meaning by defining red, white and blue.

“White signifies purity and innocence. Red hardiness and valor and Blue … signifies vigilance perseverance and justice,” the Journal of the Continental Congress recorded on June 20, 1782.

Why didn’t Congress define the colors when they first adopted the flag in 1777? They didn’t really know what the colors meant at the start of the United States. By the end of the revolution, they knew what those colors meant because they understood the cost of freedom.

They knew that a free African-American named Peter Salem lived for the red stripe of valor when he risked his life at Bunker Hill to take out the British major responsible for the first British shots of the war. Because of Salem’s story, more Africans were freed and fought. Salem fought for four years and Africans made up about four percent of the Continental Army.

They knew that the flag’s maker, Betsy Ross, was an antislavery Quaker. Her second husband, Joseph Ashburn, was thrown into a British prison for “piracy, treason and rebellion against His Majesty on the high seas.” Representing the white stripe’s pure motive of loyalty, he died because he pledged allegiance to the flag of unity that his wife first sewed.

They knew that a slave named James Armistead represented the color blue because his vigilance as a spy led to America’s victory in the final battle at Yorktown in 1781. Without Armistead’s intelligence as a servant to British General Cornwallis, General Lafayette would not have been able to notify Washington that seizing Yorktown was possible. When Amistead became a free man, he changed his name to James Lafayette.

Yes, it’s unfortunately true that slavery existed when America was founded. It’s unfortunately true that freedom was not equally applied after the American Revolution, with only states in the North abolishing slavery over our nation’s initial years and first decades. It is unfortunately true that the quest for freedom and civil rights for all has been a long, hard-fought battle.

It’s also true that America did not change the design of its flag after slavery was abolished. Why? The nation’s leaders after the Civil War did not see a need to alter the flag’s appearance because they outlawed slavery under it. The American flag—the Union flag—was the victor in the Civil War. Except for adding stars each time a state enters the Union, our flag has not changed since the Betsy Ross flag.

The flag’s meaning of unity has not changed. The values of the colors—valor, hardiness, purity, innocence, justice, perseverance, and vigilance—have not changed. The flag has been enhanced and made more brilliant as we have expanded and deepened the meaning of unity and freedom. That is something to celebrate, not denigrate like Nike by refusing to sell a shoe featuring the first flag of the United States of America.

WND has a good overview of a BlaveTV appearance of David Barton regarding Thomas Jefferson and slavery:

…Jefferson continued his abolitionist efforts all through his career.

“When he enters the Continental Congress, he introduces a law to ban slavery in all the colonies,” Barton said. “Every one of them. It failed by one vote.”

He said Jefferson regretted that failure until the end of his life.

Beck noted George Washington freed his slaves upon his death and asked Barton why Jefferson did not follow Washington’s example. Barton explained the American Revolution and the egalitarian ideals led to changes in the law, which made it easier to emancipate slaves. However, Thomas Jefferson had another problem – debt.

“They also had a law that said if you’re in debt you can’t free any slaves,” Barton said. “Jefferson, by today’s standards about two and a half million dollars in debt, is not able to free his slaves, and they changed the laws. He said this: ‘The laws will not allow me to turn them loose.’”

Still, Beck observed that while Jefferson cannot be excused for owning slaves, he not only tried to end slavery in the U.S. but worked to end the institution in other nations, including France. Barton also noted Jefferson paid his slaves, which he didn’t have to do.

Despite Jefferson owning slaves, he was remembered until recently as one of the great anti-slavery crusaders by men such as Frederick Douglass. Barton also recounted the tributes paid to Jefferson by John Quincy Adams, who was called the “hellhound of abolition.” A speech by Adams “praised Jefferson for the lead role he took in trying to end slavery,” Barton said…..

 

Did “Republicans” Own Slaves? (Dinesh D’Souza)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder has Dinesh D’Souza on his radio show to discuss the apparent folly of his [Dinesh’s] absolute statement that is thus:

  • Do you know how many Republicans owned slaves in 1860, the year before the Civil War started? The answer may surprise you if you listen to progressive (fake) historians. (DINESH)

While I have been following this somewhat closely, this is the best response yet by Dinesh. (For clarity, here is the other side — Princeton’s Kevin Kruse) An article out yesterday by Walter Williams is also noted: “REPARATIONS FOR SLAVERY“. A great back-n-forth by the two. I truncated the exchange just a bit.

Burgess Owens: “Democrats Should Pay Restitution”

Published by Papa Giorgio

WEASEL ZIPPERS hat-tip… great stuff. I posted the entire video below this clip:

Here is a snippet from THE DAILY CALLER:

“I used to be a Democrat until I did my history and found out the misery that that party brought to my race,” Owens said. “I do believe in restitution. Let’s point to the party that was part of slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, that has killed over 40 percent of our black babies, 20 million of them.”

“State of California, 75 percent of our black boys cannot pass standard reading and writing tests: a Democratic state,” Owens continued. “So yes, let’s pay restitution. How about a Democratic Party pay for all the misery brought to my race and those — after we learn our history — who decide to stay there, they should pay also. They are complicit. And every white American, Republican or Democrat, that feels guilty because of your white skin, you should need to pony up also. That way we can get past this reparation and recognize that this country has given us greatness.”

Note also this Democrat getting booed for common sense: