Have you ever noticed the TWO different accounts Liberals tell about the Founding Fathers?

Question

Most liberals love tell us that the founding fathers were liberal thinks, even as going as far as to say they were the very foundation of the modern Democratic party...they tell us

until we speak of slavery of that period

Now they put these founding fathers through an evolution that would make Charlie Darwin cringe!!! Suddenly they are right-wing conservative republicans who enslaved the black man. EVEN the liberal hero of the left Thomas Jefferson (owner of over 100 slaves) is quickly abandon and cast to the side...NO father of their they say.

Did you ever notice?

Ri..it's good your "IN" school however you didn't read the question

Lucky...try read what I wrote..try again, your out of context

Answer 1

Lol! Well said!

Answer 2

So I am a fence rider on most political topics. I am also a college student that has taken several US and poli sci classes. Here are the facts:

There were no Liberals back in the Founding Father days. There were some like Thomas Jefferson that looked at our land like it was wealth...and this is the reason that he bypassed the constitution and paid 15 million dollars in the Louisianna Purchase.

Adams and Hamilton thought that the poor man was a bane on society. They felt that he shouldn't vote, or have any say in the government. Hamilton hated Burr, and because of his back stabbing ways of making sure that Burr didn't get the presidency, he ate a bullet in a duel.

Thomas Jefferson tried to write abolition into the Declaration of Independence, but was caught, and the phrase was deleted... and I would also like to point out that laws made it almost impossible to free slaves. When he died, he was bankrupt and all of his slaves were sold against the statements in his will.

There were two types of founding fathers: Ones that wanted to be like Great Britain, and ones that wanted to ally the states with France (Jefferson was the last.)

I would like to point out that Lincoln was the first official Republican candidate.

Answer 3

I've noticed that conservatives like things black and white...and rarely take into consideration that CHANGE is inevitable.

Yes....this country was founded on the principle that all men were created equal and that all "non-whites" were actually 3/5ths of a person and not people but property. Arn't we versitile!

Guess what...it's okay to agree with some things and disagree with other things the founding fathers stood for. I think women ought to be able to vote and that slavery is awful....but you would have us think that because these are my thoughts...that i must be against everything the founding fathers stood for.

What ever happened to comprimise? That's how things get done. Not every thing is either black or white but is usually a nice shade of grey.

Slavery was a complicated issue and it took 80 some years and the most deadly war in American history to solve the issue.

Lets not have another civil war about our disagreements and start doing what Americans do best....comprimise.

Answer 4

Modern American "liberalism" (and I myself use that term to communicate with others, personally I call them what they are- socialists, liberal= free enterprise) requires that one be able to shift your rhetoric on a dime.

Many examples, but the most obvious to me: Ted Kennedy looked through former Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental history. Liberals said Clarence Thomas' alleged sexual COMMENTS were fair game. Most of the extreme sexual harassment legislation(ie. don't look at a girl for more than 3 seconds, it is staring) was passed by the Democratic congress right before they were booted out in '94. And then when their boy Bill decided to jizzz all over the blue dress with a gov't intern while working in the oval office and lie about it under oath, well that's a private matter !

Answer 5

Liberalism and conservatism are very broad terms which would have different political meanings from one era to the next. From the standpoint that our founding fathers were activists they were very liberal. Slavery had no place in their conscience and is neither a liberal or conservative ideal but rather a human rights issue.

Answer 6

Slavery was an established institution in the South which shot down many albolitionist efforts.
Franklin founded the first abolitionist society in America and ended his political career fighting for abolition.
Washington freed his slaves in his will.
Jefferson would have similarly freed his slaves if he had not accrued debts which were paid for by the sale of his slaves. Jefferson was a liberal thinker in a conservative world. His draft of the Declaration Of Independence included the following:

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Answer 7

And during that time our great nation was deeply committed to the genocide of the indiginous inhabitants, as well as teh next 100 plus years. We always were a violent society.

Answer 8

This, along with the mass of other historical misconceptions among the American populace (and among people of all parties) has nothing to do with political affiliation; rather it with the absolutely horrible way to teach in the public schools, and in history classes in particular. They teach from textbooks, which makes history boring and allows the author of the textbooks to change or interpret that historical data any way they choose, because no one will ever know the difference.

Answer 9

No. i've got no longer come throughout the time of that state of affairs yet as quickly as I did right here on YA i might infrequently award it any credibility. additionally, i'm clever sufficient to recognize that slavery became a user-friendly prepare back then and somewhat some societies used the prepare. maximum African slaves dropped at united statesa. have been offered via their own human beings to the Europeans. a user-friendly prepare of the day. this is why it wasn't a criminal offense even! I understand the factor you're going for however the inducement and purpose elude me.

Answer 10

not really... of course I don't talk about slavery a lot... just not a real big issue on my radar in 2006...

everyone had slaves back then...

Answer 11

I'm afraid that consistency will never be their strong suit.