DeSantis Rewrites History: US Revolution Was First Time Slavery was Questioned

[Flarelaine]

No one with an IQ above room temperature thinks otherwise.

I've always wondered when people use that trem whether they mean it in Celsius or Fahrenheit. Not as if either one was flattering...

[Paranoid Android]

Posting here. DeSantis needs his mega thread.

NEW: A Ron DeSantis appointee has just resigned after photos emerged of him wearing a KKK outfit. DeSantis appointed him to run Florida’s only predominately Black county.

Newspaper article: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/ne...da/8119165001/

So the photo is inconclusive and blurry. No confirmation, but Jeffery Moore did resign. Moore was the only Republican appointed to the board by DeSantis. Now did DeSantis know? Likely not, yet again I think we can conclude why this guy was appointed. I'm sure with his Republican friends, he was no friends of the African American community. Can't say how much damage he did or can do on the board.

At the end of the article this was reported below. So another DeSantis appointee had to resign for racist post of Katrina. Hmm?

Three years ago, another DeSantis-appointed official resigned from office after a similar incident involving a leaked photo. Michael Ertel, the secretary of state, resigned after photos emerged of him posing as a Hurricane Katrina victim in blackface years earlier at a private Halloween party.

[Belize]

I've always wondered when people use that trem whether they mean it in Celsius or Fahrenheit. Not as if either one was flattering...

It's even funnier in the South where everyone has a tendency to kee the AC cranked really low

[tehdang]

DeSantis makes a whole lot of ignorant comments, but this one might make his top 10. England did not abolish slavery until 1833, ~60 years AFTER the US revolution. Yet his inane argument is that the US revolted from England to continue slavery because England had abolished it? He was only over a half century off in his facts lol. Slavery was very much legal in England at the time of the revolution, so this comment shows he didn't pay a whole lot of attention in even jr. high history class.

The revolution was primarily around freedom of religion and to self-govern things like taxes. Slavery in 1776 was a big part of the economy of both countries at the time and wasn't even part of the discussion yet. 11.2 million Africans were taken to the Americas against their will between 1502 and 1866. Of that 11.2 million, only 366,000 went to the US. The other 10.8 million Africans were taken by England, Spain, and Portugal to plantations in South America and the Caribbean. Just for some perspective on how wrong the comments by DeSantis were about England's stance in 1776 on slavery. England was far more involved in slavery than the US at the time of the revolution and until later in the 1800's when abolished, not discouraging it.

The attempted rewriting of history by authoritarians is scary though and something we're seeing more of. Russia has been doing it. Other authoritarian leaders in the region are also doing it. And DeSantis is a wanna-be authoritarian but trying it. It goes back to the core of authoritarian rule, which is controlling people by telling them don't believe what educators/news/books/factual history etc. tell you, your dear leader is the only source of true information.

First anti-slavery society? America, Philadelphia, 1775.
Constitution banning slavery? Vermont, 1777
Legislative ban on slavery? Pennsylvania, 1780.

Parliament took until 1833 (correctly cited by you) 50 years after slavery bans in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island. 40 years after bans in Northwest Territory. 30 years after New York and New Jersey. So I'd say, truthfully, that Americans were early to abolitionist movements, however much stock you wish to put in national disunity on the subject after the UK took the lead. While I wish he'd stated specifically on the subject of a divided country, first to abolitionism and state bans, but late to national unity on the subject, I also must note his critics intentionally ignore and rewrite the global history. Did people think a compromise like the 3/5ths compromise proves the opposite: that slave states had no need to make a compromise because there was no powerful abolitionist movement or state constitutional and legislative bans?

[Kaleredar]

First anti-slavery society? America, Philadelphia, 1775.
Constitution banning slavery? Vermont, 1777
Legislative ban on slavery? Pennsylvania, 1780.

Parliament took until 1833 (correctly cited by you) 50 years after slavery bans in Vermont, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island. 40 years after bans in Northwest Territory. 30 years after New York and New Jersey. So I'd say, truthfully, that Americans were early to abolitionist movements, however much stock you wish to put in national disunity on the subject after the UK took the lead. While I wish he'd stated specifically on the subject of a divided country, first to abolitionism and state bans, but late to national unity on the subject, I also must note his critics intentionally ignore and rewrite the global history. Did people think a compromise like the 3/5ths compromise proves the opposite: that slave states had no need to make a compromise because there was no powerful abolitionist movement or state constitutional and legislative bans?

Some Americans were against it. As were some people in many, many other countries.

But many other people in the United States were not against slavery and in fact were very much for it. So many others, in fact, that they tried to become their own country and fought and killed real American soldiers. Efforts to remove slavery prior were fought against tooth and nail by southern states and their sympathizers... like the state of Florida. And the 3/5ths compromise was not some "step towards abolition," it was just another step in debasing black people that gave southern states a benefit for holding people in slavery.

[Blur4stuff]

I'm fully expecting them to start teaching that black people were better off as slaves and actually liked it. Can't count how many times my southern relatives have floated such ideas.

[s_bushido]

I'm fully expecting them to start teaching that black people were better off as slaves and actually liked it. Can't count how many times my southern relatives have floated such ideas.

It's a pretty common talking point. It usually concludes with the old chestnut: "If America is so terrible for black people, why don't they want to live in Africa today?"

[Endus]

First anti-slavery society? America, Philadelphia, 1775.
Constitution banning slavery? Vermont, 1777
Legislative ban on slavery? Pennsylvania, 1780.

You know countries other than the USA have existed, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...ry_and_serfdom

[Breccia]

I'm fully expecting them to start teaching that black people were better off as slaves and actually liked it.

"And now, class, the historical documentary Song of the South".

- - - Updated - - -

First anti-slavery society? America, Philadelphia, 1775.

First of all, liar. You didn't even check Wikipedia. There were laws against it in America in 1652. Hell, Georgia outlawed it in the 1730's. Yes, Georgia, the colony. I don't think you really looked. I think you cherry-picked. Seriously, who does research and doesn't even glance at Wikipedia? You are factually wrong, you could only have done that on purpose, and that makes you a liar.

And don't bother trying to weasel your way out of this one, because...

Second of all, horrifyingly off-topic. DeSantis said nothing of organized societies of white people. DeSantis said "no-one". And considering there were multiple fatal slave uprisings in NYC starting in 1712, well before the Declaration, I would say your information here is as uselessly irrelevant as it is in the Mar-a-Lago case.

Yes, NYC had slaves. Like, a lot of them.

[tehdang]

Some Americans were against it. As were some people in many, many other countries.

But many other people in the United States were not against slavery

I'm sorry that unilateral opposition didn't occur countrywide in a manner that passes your scrutiny. You're still ignoring entire states and major movements of individuals that banned and campaigned to ban slavery before other countries even had more than private whispers in bars. Slave states were forced to compromise in the direction of abolition before other countries even began to muster resistance. You're still defending inaction because proof of action was not widespread enough for your tastes. Kaleredar is a voice for "Inaction is better than action" in historical analysis.

[Kaleredar]

I'm sorry that unilateral opposition didn't occur countrywide in a manner that passes your scrutiny. You're still ignoring entire states and major movements of individuals that banned and campaigned to ban slavery before other countries even had more than private whispers in bars. Slave states were forced to compromise in the direction of abolition before other countries even began to muster resistance. You're still defending inaction because proof of action was not widespread enough for your tastes. Kaleredar is a voice for "Inaction is better than action" in historical analysis.

No, I'm a voice for "don't start calling your past to be one of enlightened saints when much history exists to the contrary." Especially when the ramifications of that history exist today.

[tehdang]

No, I'm a voice for "don't start calling your past to be one of enlightened saints when much history exists to the contrary." Especially when the ramifications of that history exist today.

You just dismissed actual organized opposition that achieved statewide bans and extracted compromises, so I'm happy to conclude you stood in favor of slavery until it could be nationally banned. I'm sorry America didn't wait another half century like the UK before taking action, so you could actually come out in favor of abolitionist societies and several state-wide bans. Let's transport you back to abolitionist societies in the late 1700s to tell them their work doesn't matter so long as state in the south aren't complying yet. I'm sure they'll be as happy as you to dismiss their early action, or would you prefer the several states refused to act until later, so that the UK wasn't as late to the party?

[Endus]

I'm sorry that unilateral opposition didn't occur countrywide in a manner that passes your scrutiny. You're still ignoring entire states and major movements of individuals that banned and campaigned to ban slavery before other countries even had more than private whispers in bars. Slave states were forced to compromise in the direction of abolition before other countries even began to muster resistance. You're still defending inaction because proof of action was not widespread enough for your tastes. Kaleredar is a voice for "Inaction is better than action" in historical analysis.

You're being called out because Philly was in no way the initiating point for global anti-abolition movements. Which was what you claimed. Not that it "doesn't pass our scrutiny"; it doesn't pass any scrutiny, because it's so patently false.

And no; you're still lying. There have been myriad nations that have sought to abolish slavery within their borders that predated the existence of the USA. And on far greater scales than a single city within that country, at that.

You're just lying and trying to present the USA as if it was some leader in the movement to abolish slavery, and that's historical revisionism. It's a lie.

[Kaleredar]

You just dismissed actual organized opposition that achieved statewide bans and extracted compromises, so I'm happy to conclude you stood in favor of slavery until it could be nationally banned. I'm sorry America didn't wait another half century like the UK before taking action, so you could actually come out in favor of abolitionist societies and several state-wide bans. Let's transport you back to abolitionist societies in the late 1700s to tell them their work doesn't matter so long as state in the south aren't complying yet. I'm sure they'll be as happy as you to dismiss their early action, or would you prefer the several states refused to act until later, so that the UK wasn't as late to the party?

Several states didn't act until later. This "crusade" of the right-wing to try and refrain the US as having been profoundly anti-slavery to help ameliorate their own guilt as having been a part of slavery's propagation is equal parts shallow and hollow, seeing as these are the same people who will go on to call the Civil War the "war of northern aggression" or assert that it was really about state's rights. It's all just trying to pass the buck, and you're being willfully ignorant if you can't see this is simply a piece of that attitude.

Those societies may have doing great things to fight slavery. The northern sates eventually did a lot to end slavery. The United States as a whole did not, and when it tried, many states... like Desantis' own state... fought tooth and nail to keep slavery a thing. They can't suddenly claim that the US' history was defined solely by those who fought against slavery and that such attitudes were unique to the US or even the predominant view.

Also, weird that you paint the 3/5ths compromise as "an enlightened middle ground between slave and free states," as if that did one single damned thing to actually help the lives of slaves.

[tehdang]

Several states didn't act until later.

I'm happy that you're a big caveat guy, but let's not use that as an excuse to ignore large movements of individuals that achieved legislative, constitutional, and societal victories in the years where other countries were doing fuck all. It defines you as the guy that declares the movement void because it failed to achieve nationwide victory in the first years of its existence. It absolutely spits upon the sacrifice and valor and achievements, because you're motivated to only highlight the defeats in partial victory. History deserves a better treatment. Maybe, in time, you can admit that.

Until then, you're in favor of slavery until it could be nationally banned. Nothing else matters to you.

[Endus]

I'm happy that you're a big caveat guy, but let's not use that as an excuse to ignore large movements of individuals that achieved legislative, constitutional, and societal victories in the years where other countries were doing fuck all. It defines you as the guy that declares the movement void because it failed to achieve nationwide victory in the first years of its existence. It absolutely spits upon the sacrifice and valor and achievements, because you're motivated to only highlight the defeats in partial victory. History deserves a better treatment. Maybe, in time, you can admit that.

Until then, you're in favor of slavery until it could be nationally banned. Nothing else matters to you.

If you're okay with slavery being banned in your backyard while still permitted nationally, you're not abolitionist, no. You just don't want slaves in your neighbourhood. And presenting that position as some grand American opposition to slavery at a time when the USA was one of the wealthiest slave-exploiting nations in the world is galling historical revisionism.

It's akin to trying to argue that Berliners weren't largely anti-Semitic Nazis in 1942 because they didn't want gas chambers and incinerators in Berlin itself.

[Ivanstone]

I'm happy that you're a big caveat guy, but let's not use that as an excuse to ignore large movements of individuals that achieved legislative, constitutional, and societal victories in the years where other countries were doing fuck all. It defines you as the guy that declares the movement void because it failed to achieve nationwide victory in the first years of its existence. It absolutely spits upon the sacrifice and valor and achievements, because you're motivated to only highlight the defeats in partial victory. History deserves a better treatment. Maybe, in time, you can admit that.

Until then, you're in favor of slavery until it could be nationally banned. Nothing else matters to you.

And you're ignoring large movements of individuals that achieved legislative, constitutional, and societal victories in the years before the USA even existed. Hell, before American colonies even existed. All so you can provide cover for a person who's talking out his ass.

Meanwhile after the civil war, southern states immediately started up with Jim Crow laws to remove rights from those freed slaves. Laws that people like De Santis continue to perpetuate.

[Kaleredar]

I'm happy that you're a big caveat guy, but let's not use that as an excuse to ignore large movements of individuals that achieved legislative, constitutional, and societal victories in the years where other countries were doing fuck all. It defines you as the guy that declares the movement void because it failed to achieve nationwide victory in the first years of its existence. It absolutely spits upon the sacrifice and valor and achievements, because you're motivated to only highlight the defeats in partial victory. History deserves a better treatment. Maybe, in time, you can admit that.

Until then, you're in favor of slavery until it could be nationally banned. Nothing else matters to you.

You really are bad at reading comprehension, aren't you?

Suffice to say, apparently in you're in favor of overwriting history and ignoring the bad parts because those bad parts make your side of the political spectrum look bad and the ramifications and continued acceptance and propagation of institutionalized racism all the more stark and obvious. "Look guys, people that weren't me and didn't adhere to my political beliefs did GOOD things! Therefore, can any of us really be to blame? Clearly, anyone that has problems with these issues today is just missing the point because of how good we all acted in the past!"

In fact, you're so bad at reading comprehension you apparently can't even read the posts from other posters that pick apart what you're attempting to say.

No, sorry, I don't believe that you "just happened to miss them" when they're sitting a post above yours. Just like how I don't believe the motives of Desantis or other conservatives when they try and pull stupid shit like this.

[masterhorus8]

"You think others questioned slavery before the US, therefor you support slavery."

WHEW, that is a spicy take. Fucking reported for trolling on that one.

[beanman12345]

Probably came up with that bit of alternative history from the fact that a statue exists somewhere, no doubt. Seriously, though, an American "conservative," any single one of them, showing an even rudimentary knowledge of grade school history, science, English, math etc etc would be far more interesting, because it's just not something you really ever see anymore. And it's not even worth the time to debate these people who would stop breathing if it wasn't automatic, that's why I salute guys like Fetterman spending his time wisely just shitting on them instead of debating them. It's far more successful.