Thomas Jefferson And Other Presidents Who Owned Slaves.

Thomas Jefferson

Source

Great Man, Hypocrite Or Both?

©2012 VVeasey Publishing

07/04/12

There are many people who buy into the myth of the founding fathers. They see them as some kind of mythological figures. They're gods! Everything about them is sacrosanct! Everything they wrote or said is holy and can't be changed!. They weren't human and never did anything wrong or made mistakes. I get it!

And it would really be nice if the Easter bunny, The Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus existed too. And the world really was as wonderful as it seemed when were just starry-eyed little kids still believing in these wonderful mythological beings.

But the "founding fathers" were people, just like us, who had their good points and bad points

Isn't it ironic, that Thomas Jefferson one of the great so-called "founding fathers" who penned the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” could also be one of the great slaveholders?


Judging By Standards Of Our Time

For those of you who say we shouldn't judge Jefferson or the other "founding fathers" by the standards of our time.

Your logic is faulty.

We can judge their "greatness' by the standards of our time but not their badness for being slave owners?

Give me a break

There were those doing their time judging them by "our standards"....The abolitionists, who saw slavery and those who participated in for the evil it was.

it Gets Worst

Oh I almost forgot. It gets worst

Twelve American presidents were slave owners. Eight of them owned slaves while they were president. Slaves were a common sight at the white house. They help build it. Imagine that! Slave labor built the "White" House. Now we know why it's called the "White" house.

Historical records list some of the enslaved workers as carpenters. They were only listed by their first names, Peter, Ben, Tom, Harry and Daniel to name a few, they worked seven days a week, rain, shine, sleet or snow, winter, spring, summer and fall. (helluva life)

Slave owning President, Zachary Taylor, believed owning slaves was a Constitutional right, saying that he was willing to "appeal to the sword if necessary" to protect that right.

And some people say the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery.

Oh that's right. I forgot. It was fought over "states” rights".

The states right to do what?

The “right” of the slave owning states to maintain the profitable slave trade and they “appealed to the sword" to protect that "right". They seceded from the United States, created their own country “The Confederate States Of America” and fought the “Civil War” against the United States Of America to protect that “right”.

But "all men are created equal" right?

Right!

What hypocrisy. Especially when you have Presidents of a country that’s supposed to be the bastion of freedom, individual rights, liberty and justice all owning slaves.

Here's a list of slave owning Presidents who owned slaves while in office or during their lifetime.

GEORGE WASHINGTON (between 250-350 slaves, some say around 800 at it's peak) Owned while president and or during his lifetime.

THOMAS JEFFERSON (about 200) Owned while president

JAMES MADISON (more than 100) Owned while president

JAMES MONROE (about 75) Owned while president

ANDREW JACKSON (fewer than 200) Owned while president

Martin Van Buren (one)

William Henry Harrison (eleven)

JOHN TYLER (about 70) Owned while president

JAMES POLK (about 25) Owned while president

ZACHARY TAYLOR (fewer than 150) Owned while president

Andrew Johnson (probably eight)

Ulysses S. Grant (probably five)

Sources: Garry Wills; Rob Lopresti at http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/ps.htm

The Founding Fathers

Source

The Founding Slave Owners

Jefferson was part of the wealthy white ruling class of slaveholders. He owned various plantations, thousands of acres of land and hundreds of slaves during his lifetime.

Most of the "founding fathers" were slaveholders and rich plantation owners including Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Paine, John Hancock and James Madison to name a few. Plantation owning and slave owning went hand in hand.

It's not widely known that Franklin owned slaves, because in later life he was staunchly against it.

"Franklin owned two slaves, George and King, who worked as personal servants, and his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, commonly ran notices involving the sale or purchase of slaves and contracts for indentured laborers". http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitio

Jefferson along with other white elites and the white population in general, saw blacks (Negroes) as untrustworthy, child-like, inferior and not able to function on their own as free individuals. They saw them as needing guidance, the way a child needs guidance by a parent or a dog by its owner. This absolved the slaveholders of any guilt and a handy justification for enslaving them.

Dr. Samuel Johnson, who lived during that time, wrote sarcastically about those who wanted freedom for themselves while at the same time enslaving blacks, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?"


Sally Hemings

To add to this hypocrisy, Jefferson (and he wasn’t the only one) had a black slave mistress, Sally Hemings, who was in her early teens. She was thought to be the half-sister of his wife, Martha (see what I mean about him not being the only one?).

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation and many historians believe Jefferson was the father of six of Hemings children. The incident was somewhat scandalous at the time and Jefferson tried to bribe a hostile reporter not to write about it.Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Jefferson's grandson, described Hemings as "light colored and decidedly good looking."

Jefferson freed two of Hemings' (and his) children in 1822 but he didn't free Hemings or any of his other slaves while he was alive. He left a will that freed them upon his death. Jefferson's daughter, Martha, allowed Hemings to leave the Monticello plantation in 1826 shortly after Jefferson died.

Je

Jefferson's Red Hair

Jefferson had red hair and there were reports there were many red-headed enslaved children running around Jefferson's plantations. So it wasn't just Sally who was being sexually taken advantage of

I can see how it may have been hard for Jefferson and other “founding” fathers to give up their slaves. Jefferson was a wealthy plantation owner. Free slave labor baby! Much lower overhead and expenses than if he had to hire paid workers.


“All men are created equal?”

You see when Jefferson wrote, “All men are created equal”. He obviously did not mean all men. He meant the wealthy white plantation owners, the ruling class (like himself) who wanted to free themselves from the rule of King George III of England. All land seized or "discovered" by the British belonged to King George III. King George levied heavy taxes on the then British colonies to keep them from becoming too independent of his rule. This lead to the Revolutionary War.

Jefferson was a great thinker but he didn’t have the courage to live up to the principles he so magnificently wrote about in the Declaration of Independence. He hoped the men of the next generation would put his principles into practice for the new nation.

But, as I pointed out, the Declaration of the Independence was really for the wealthy white plantation owners who wanted to free themselves from the control of King George III. it wasn't necessarily the declaration of independence of everyone in the new nation. (The plan to beak away from the British Empire was so unpopular with the people that the meetings had to be held in secret).

It was a slow process of a couple of hundred years before the declaration that “All men are created equal” was gradually and with much turmoil, eventually, extended to all men, and women of United States.

It took the revolutionary war, the civil war, the Jim crow era, the segregation era, the civil rights movement, the voting rights movement, the woman rights movement, the gay rights movement and there are still people who pay lip service to that principle, as Jefferson did, and don’t want it extended to all of the American people, even today.


Seeing Them IN A Truer Light

The "founding fathers" (especially Jefferson) should be seen in a truer light than what the public has seen them in up to now. They or Jefferson shouldn't be white-washed in to something entirely different from what they were. They should be accepted for who they were, the good, the bad and the ugly and I think America will be better off if we do.

Isn't it better to know the truth and act from that point of view than to act from the point of view of a myth?

I think so too!

If you enjoyed the hub vote it up, share with friends, family on Facebook and other social media

Big Thanks!


"Negro President": Jefferson and the Slave Power

More by this Author


Comments 31 comments

Clark-Savage-jr profile image

Clark-Savage-jr 4 years ago from Texas

I just have one question for you. What do you want your reader to do?

When we communicate, we are usually imparting information to motivate the audience to action. Either to take external action, internal action, or learn new information that will affect future actions.

I enjoyed reading this. I think it was well written and thought provoking. After reading this, I have more information that I did before, but I'm not 100% clear what you want from me, the audience. In the beginning, this sounded like a piece illustrating the hypocrisy we can all fall into, and that we should try to avoid. Then, near the end, you pointed out that this nation (The U.S.) has been making painful strides to slowly make the words of the Declaration of Independence closer to being true. Then, with the last sentence, you point out that there are people like Jefferson today.

So I've gone from "Let this be an example to avoid" to "we are making progress" to "There are still Jeffersons among us."

If I had written this, I would have added the following paragraph as closing:

"Today is July 4th, 2012. It is 236 years since Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers signed the Declaration. As a nation, in fact as a world, we have made strides to make the ideals and concepts in that document become truths. But they are not truths and facts to everyone. Not yet. What can each of us do to make these enlightened concepts become the true facts of existence for all people?"

But that is me. So, I return to my original question, what do you want your audience to take away from your message?


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Clark-Savage-jr

Thanks for weighing in with your point of view!

You make some cogent comments.

But unlike others who may try to motivate others to do something specific when they write. I'm Just imparting my point of view of a subject that I think many Americans aren't aware of and should be aware of. That's it!

So I guess what I want readers to do is to read, comprehend and become aware of something about the mythological founding fathers that they may not have been aware of and to update their views about the subject if they find what I write relevant and if they feel like taking action. Take whatever action they're willing to be responsible for.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

Your hub is in fact thought provoking, BUT! You and all you're readers must keep in mind we are talking about a different time and place in history. It was not dishonest of these men to believe the black savages they found naked in Africa were below par as human beings. Many believed they were doing them a service in providing for them and bringing them to America. At this same time in history there were regular cock fights in the basement of the white house? Can anyone imagine the shock and horror of this happening today? I know the history of my family and it is well documented that when our slaves were freed not one wanted to leave. They became paid employees and many lived out their days with my family. Men were men, ladies were ladies, times were rougher and much harder, More folks were of the biblical sense. It is not mentioned much, but the bible speaks clearly on slavery. God says to take good care of your servants etc..........He really never mentions they should be freed. And those in that day took this to heart.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

American Romance

My ole buddy thanks for chiming in. I'm honored that you continue to follow my hubs

You say "You and all you're readers must keep in mind we are talking about a different time and place in history."

See here you go again making excuses and rationalizations for your heroes attempting to alter our perception of the ugly truths about them.

Of course were talking about a different time and place in history that's obvious when reading this hub.

The point is that we're still idolizing and honoring Jefferson and what he wrote in the past " All men are created equal" today.

So if that principle applies today and down through time. It also applied then when Jefferson wrote it didn't it? Or was he lying when he wrote that?


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

American Romance

One other thing, you also say, "but the bible speaks clearly on slavery. God says to take good care of your servants etc..........He really never mentions they should be freed. And those in that day took this to heart". (Yes the bible was always used to justify enslaving Africans)

That's pretty good but you obviously don't know the difference between a slave and a servant. So let me see if I can enlighten you.

A servant is someone who is employed by someone to serve them in some way.

A slave is someone's property like a chair, a cow or anything owned by someone. A slave has no rights because they are not considered to persons.

Servant don't have to be freed, slaves do.

See dictionary definitions below

Definition of a servant

1. a person employed to work for another, esp one who performs household duties

Definition of a slave

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

I agree on the servant/slave issue, but it also begs the question if any of us know what God meant. You may be right or wrong if they were actually slaves.

Am I making excusses for them? Yes but it is a VIABLE excuse. Slavery was not just happening in America, and they were considered property not people when Jefferson said all men were created equal. The israelites were slaves also and they were not black. Slavery has been around for the entire life of the world. I am certainly not advocating slavery, simply reminding the world of it's history. So in conclusion we may overlook Jeffersons shortcomings concerning slavery and look towards the great and honorable things he did for this great country. Jefferson was a forefather and no matter how we try to use hindsite and demonize him the fact remains.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

American Romance

There no need to defend your hero

This hub is not about demonizing Jefferson or the honorable things he did. Those things are already appreciated by millions of Americans.

But the not so honorable things he did aren't appreciated or even known by most Americans.

This hub is about bringing a fuller view of Jefferson into view not just the mythological, heroic view.

If we don't see all of Jefferson doesn't that give us a partially fictitious view of Jefferson?

Don't you think it's better to see the truth about Jefferson along with the myth of Jefferson?


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

Just so you know I did know the truth about Jefferson, The account I know is actually worse than the one you wrote. Seems Jefferson was redheaded and after years he seemed to have many redheaded slaves on his plantations. Truth is the best thing for all.............we must make sure it is TRUTH and not propoganda as many like to write. It was a good and interesting hub in case I forgot to tell you.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

American Romance

you say " It was a good and interesting hub in case I forgot to tell you".

American Romance coming from you, that is a great compliment!

Thanks! I appreciate it. I'm glad we can see eye to eye on this.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

you knew we had to click on SOMETHING! LOL!


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


arlofton profile image

arlofton 4 years ago from Brandon, MS

I don't know which was more interesting, the hub or the comments afterward! I'm glad I'm not the only person thinking about Thomas Jefferson this week. I've been perusing his writings (nerd that I am.) Your point about Jefferson's view of African descendants is found in Notes on Virginia, Query XIV. Several of the Queries in Notes on Virginia express his views regarding slaves. Thomas Jefferson has to be taken exactly how is was - not altered into a god-like figure. He was a genius, in my estimation, but his worldview on the human condition did not extend equality beyond wealthy, white males. It was no fault of his own; it was the paradigm of the day! To expect that Jefferson could somehow have evolved beyond the thinkers of his day (I have to qualify that: European thinkers of his day) would not be logical. Good Hub! I'm gonna follow you.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 4 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

arlofton

I appreciate you weighing in with your view.

I'm gonna checkout the notes on Virginia.

Thanks for following me!


mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

Benjamin Franklin and John Adams did not own slaves. Slavery was against Franklin’s religion (Quaker) and from what I have read he wanted it out only giving in to protect the fragile union amount the future states. As for the rest they were men of their time and it’s unfair to judge them using today’s views and mentality. They had enough sense to write a document that could be changed with the times. This revisionist history only serves the writer and his or her views. Or in other words a person can take any part of history and twist it to meet their view. You approached this with the idiotic idea of the curse of Ham. She should recognize them for what they are and appreciate their accomplishments and what we made from it. The promise of equality and the slow crawl toward it.


mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

Sorry about that I ment We not She, my bad.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

mike102771

You say "You approached this with the idiotic idea of the curse of Ham."

Explain how I'm doing that?

I said most if not all of them were slave holders.

You say "As for the rest they were men of their time and it’s unfair to judge them using today’s views and mentality." I could say that this is an idiotic view.

I can judge them by today's standards. Just as we judge them by today's standards when we say the were great men who wrote a great document.

You call me revisionist..to me you're the revisionist and apologist softening the view of who they were as humans

They were humans not gods. That's the way I judge them no matter what time period they lived in.

That's like saying that I can't say that Billy the kid, Al Capone, or Attila the Hun weren't murderers because they lived during an earlier time


mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

When I said "You approached this with the idiotic idea of the curse of Ham "I meant intelligently (although I meant they not you as in they approached etc. I should really check for errors before I send)

I do not apologies for their actions what I meant was we can admire what they built. It’s like admiring what the Romans built or the Egyptians both of whom used slaves. I still feel it is unrealistic to judge them using today’s standard but I did not mean you (or anyone else) could not. I would not tell anyone how to think. When I said “She (we) should recognize them for what they are and appreciate their accomplishments and what we made from it” I meant that they were flawed men of their time not Gods ( I should of explained that better). Capone and William Bonney did not write a document that later on could grow to meet the (at the time) lofty goals wrote upon it (although they where folk heroes to some). With the exception to Franklin I would not call them great I would say the document that developed from their works was great.

You mentioned both Franklin and Adams as slave holders. “Most of the "founding fathers" were slaveholders and rich plantation owners including Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Paine, John Hancock and James Madison to name a few.”


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Whether Bonney or Capone wrote a document with lofty goals or not, how does that change if we judge them by today's standards or the the standards of their times?

It doesn't matter if it was acceptable to take the law into your own hands in the wild period and area where Bonney lived. Isn't He still considered a killer?

During Attila the Hun's time others. It was common for tyrants to conquer and slaughter people. So do we judge him and others as tyrants, by the standards of their time or our time?

I apologize for including John Adams in the slave holder category

But this is from the PBS website about Frankin and slavery

"Franklin owned two slaves, George and King, who worked as personal servants, and his newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette, commonly ran notices involving the sale or purchase of slaves and contracts for indentured laborers". http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitio...


mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

Interesting I never saw that before (I will have to spend a little time that that site) thank you.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

You said "Slavery was against Franklin’s religion (Quaker)"

So you see, just because someone is a Quaker doesn't mean they didn't own slaves.

Just because someone is cop, the president or a priest, doesn't mean they won't commit a crime does it, as history attests (corrupt cops, Nixon and Watergate, Catholic Priests and sexual abuse of boys).


mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

Had he been true to his religion then he would not have. The anti-slavery movement started in this country with the Quakers (Society of Friends). He freed any slaves he had and pushed for both abolition and education of the freed slaves. Whether he woke up and saw the light or as in the PBS article freed his slaves because of his hatred of anything English the end result is still the same when the 1787 constitutional convention came together he was (now) against slavery. I would choose Franklin over Jefferson every time. Could you imagine if we did it the same way they did back then with the person who came in second for President as Vice President? VP Mitt Romney?

Not all cops are corrupt or all Priests pedophiles (I am not saying you said ALL). The cops that are found to be corrupt and the kiddy diddling priests (when not covered up) are prosecuted. People are an amalgamation of their acts. Yes Nixon covered up the break in of the Democratic offices in the Watergate, but he also ended the draft, helped create The EPA, and reducing the tensions between the US, China, and the U.S.S.R.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Well first you say Franklin didn't own slaves and that "Slavery was against Franklin’s religion"

When I show you that he did own slaves.

Then you say "Had he been true to his religion then he would not have".

That's the point.

You assumed because he was a Quaker he wouldn't have owned slaves.

That's like thinking that everyone who's a Christian follows all of the ten commandments. That's a little bit on the naïve side.

You say "Not all cops are corrupt or all Priests pedophiles (I am not saying you said ALL)."

Then why are bringing this up? What the point?

Me saying corrupt cops means there are cops who aren't corrupt or there would be no need for me to say "corrupt cops". The same goes for the Priests who are pedophiles or presidents who break the law.

To me you're being redundant because as you said I didn't say all, cops, priests or presidents are bad

Nixon committed an illegal act, but you counter with he ended the draft. This is why I say you're an oppologist .

It's like you're trying to show that he wasn't so bad or something.

Same thing with the "founding fathers"

Why do you keep doing that?


mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

Why are you so one dimensional? A person can be more than one thing. My point is that people can do both great evils as well as great deeds and one does not cancel out the other. Yes these men were flawed, but isn’t everyone. They were men not gods. I do not apologize for others. I can see the big picture not just focus on one thing that bothers me. Even now we are using the document they created (when I say they I mean the Federalist who insisted on a Bill of Rights if we had left it up to Jefferson all rights would have been implied) by speaking our minds as in freedom of speech.

I assumed he had no slaves because until you showed me that site I had never read or heard anything about it. It goes against the popular view of the man. As for the rest I take it you don’t know any Quakers. Quakers make Mennonite look like Agnostics.

As for the places where I am being redundant it is for the most part I am agreeing with you.

There are cops that are corrupt and many more who are not but if you only focus on the corrupt ones you will miss the rest that are working hard to serve the public. The same with priests with the added notion that our society is making the few priests that are guilty into a blanket condemnation of all priests. Almost every TV show or movie today when a priest is involved he is a pedophile or covering up for one.

“It's like you're trying to show that he wasn't so bad or something.” Are you saying because he covered up a break in he is evil. That act of stupidity that led him to resigning (instead of impeachment) destroyed his presidency forever leaving him only to be remembered for that and nothing else?


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

I think it's obvious that all cops, priests, presidents aren't corrupt or bad

You say I'm one dimensional but you said I didn't say all cops, priests, and president were corrupt or bad etc

but then you go on explaining like I did said they all were corrupt or bad and how I have to see that all cops etc aren't corrupt or bad

So maybe you're being redundant because even though I didn't say and you acknowledge that I didn't say, all cops, priests, presidents etc were bad, corrupt etc, (which means I don't see them one dimensionally),

Your consistent ignoring of this causes you see what I'm saying, one dimensionally.


mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

What I am saying one dimensional thinking is looking at just one side of men like Jefferson, Franklin, and yes Nixon without seeing the full picture. Saying Nixon was bad because of the cover up is one dimensional thinking. He was a man who did both bad and good things. A man can be both good and bad. Even a hypocrite who owned slaves can provide a system that eventually created a country where all are equal. True evil such as Hitler, Stalin, and Cheney are the exception to the rule.

My point in the police/priest thing is that looking at a man is like looking at a police station. If at looking into a police station all a person looks for is the corruption than the person is not seeing the reality of that station. Or if all you look for is corruption then all you will see is corruption.

This argument goes into the two ways most people see the founding fathers or founders as is the modern term used.

1. One side is the Fox news founding fathers as men who could do no wrong a sort of God like men.

2. Then there are the people who say more or less the country was founded by corrupt opportunist and the country we live in today is despite their efforts.

When I look I see a group of flawed men who did both bad and good.

I will agree with you that we can judge them using today’s view I just think it would be unrealistic to expect the people of that time to think the way we do now. There is a saying hindsight is 20/20, but I think it’s more like 20/20 when viewed through the corrective lenses of the observer (rose colored for founder worshipers).


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

Don't millions of people already have a "one dimensinal view" of Jefferson, Franklin and the other "founding fathers"?

Don't they know about the good or great things they did and hold them in high esteem?

But do they know about other part of the picture...the bad things they did?

I'm actually giving people a fuller view of these guys.

The other side of these "heroic" figures that they don't or may not know to give them a fuller picture of them.

So your efforts to show that I have a one dimensional view of these "founding fathers" is misguided


mike102771 profile image

mike102771 3 years ago from Lakemore, Ohio

I agree with you we need to have a realistic view of these men and I thank you for explaining your views. We should teach about the men and not the myth. I still think it is unrealistic to expect men from the 18th century to have the same mentality as their descendants. We have evolved from that primitive thinking through time and experiences.

I have heard and read about the paradox of such men like Jefferson, Washington, and others. Washington disliked his troops and in at least one battle placed sharp shooters behind his men with orders to shoot anyone who broke ranks. The political writers and his fellow founders said that President Washington’s legacy would be short lived. Today we see them as being long time friends who agreed on everything which is far from the truth.

Most of what Jefferson wrote was stolen from others such as Payne, Hobbes, and Locke. It was Locke that first penned the idea that “all men are created equal.”

And I thank you for going back and changing your article removing Adams and mentioning that Franklin later in life was against slavery.


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

When I say slave trader it just means those who operate in the slave market for financial gain.

Just as financial traders operate in the stock market for financial gain,

So Jefferson didn't necessarily have to meet them at the ship when they disembarked to be a slave trader. although, I would guess that, sometimes he probably did.

The slave markets were usually operated in the town square


vveasey profile image

vveasey 3 years ago from Detroit,MI Author

mike102771 1

You said "And I thank you for going back and changing your article removing Adams and mentioning that Franklin later in life was against slavery".

No problem.

That's just the kind of person I am.

I try to be honest, impartial and fair in my hubs.

If I realize that something I wrote is not correct.

I correct it.

I don't try to fight with those who disagree with me, nor do I have a biased "ax" to grind.

I just try to "paint" a clear "picture" of whatever I hub about.


Gary 2 years ago

Surfing the net and I came upon this hub of 13 months ago. Something to ponder. "If your not informed, then you have not heard the news. If you heard the news then you are misinformed." Quote by Will Rogers. More about my study, my favorite teachers in life are Pontius Pilot saying, "What is truth", And then Adolf Hitler, He showed me how easy it is was to dupe a whole nation. I'm as gullible as anybody until I study and then realize that I've been duped again. Smile.


Randy 9 months ago

Why don't you speak some truth? I am tired of the same old excuses, and getting blamed for things I, nor my ancestors had nothing to do with based on my skin color.

Who were the first slaves in America? Whites, (Irish) that is who.

Who brought the slaves to America? the Spanish aided by the Portuguese and other blacks, that is who.

Who owned the first African slave? It was a black man, that is who.

Who captured the slaves? other black tribesmen, that is who.

Who freed the slaves? the Republicans, that is who.

One comment mentioned the times they lived in, and TJ was actually an abolishonist, but how far do you think the slaves would have gone if they were set free?

I am really sick of this racist bullshit, you think its hard being black? Try being white. We live in the greatest (although not perfect) nation in the world and all ya'll can do is cry about the past. The founding fathers knew it was not perfect, but left it open for improvments. We are a nation of inovators, not cry babies, get over yourself and the racism.

I don't like Obama because of his policies, not his skin color. Hell I voted for him the first time. If America is sooooo racist, how did he get elected when only 13% of the population is black?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    vveasey profile image

    vveasey130 Followers
    113 Articles

    Wresting the light from the cave of darkness, and the truth, from the bowels of ignorance. Every moment is filled with endless possibilities



    Click to Rate This Article
    working