11 Score and 17 years ago, The Birth of the American Spirit was witnessed... (1 Viewer)

[Wehrwolfen]

by Dan Hendrickson
04/19/2012




April 19th, 1775

On that fateful day, that unfortunately most Public School students are taught little about, an amazing thing was created, the American Spirit. While it is true that the colonies had been around for quite awhile, centuries even in some areas, American Spirit was not created until April 19th, 1775. That was the first time, Freedom and Liberty minded individuals from all classes of society and race coalesced together and not only held their line in the sand, but drove the British Army all the way back to Boston.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Knuckin Futty Enterprises: 11 Score and 17 years ago, The Birth of the American Spirit was witnessed...

What are our children taught today about the birth of America? Little to nothing.

 

[StillBallin75]

by Dan Hendrickson
04/19/2012




April 19th, 1775

On that fateful day, that unfortunately most Public School students are taught little about, an amazing thing was created, the American Spirit. While it is true that the colonies had been around for quite awhile, centuries even in some areas, American Spirit was not created until April 19th, 1775. That was the first time, Freedom and Liberty minded individuals from all classes of society and race coalesced together and not only held their line in the sand, but drove the British Army all the way back to Boston.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
Knuckin Futty Enterprises: 11 Score and 17 years ago, The Birth of the American Spirit was witnessed...

What are our children taught today about the birth of America? Little to nothing.

haha..."Freedom and Liberty-minded individuals from all classes of society and race" - aka mostly White Protestants plus some French and Indian allies who won a war and continued the freedom-loving practice of enslaving black Africans.

Come on dude. It's one thing to teach actual history - quite another to completely whitewash it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

haha..."Freedom and Liberty-minded individuals from all classes of society and race" - aka mostly White Protestants plus some French and Indian allies who won a war and continued the freedom-loving practice of enslaving black Africans.

Come on dude. It's one thing to teach actual history - quite another to completely whitewash it.

But hey, the link teaches (warns?) us that we will convert to communism/socialism if we lose "the spirit", even though that had zero to do with the American Revolution.

 

[StillBallin75]

But hey, the link teaches us that we will convert to communism/socialism if we lose "the spirit", even though that had zero to do with the American Revolution.

What's funny is someone bothering to actually give the so-called "American Spirit" a specific birthday lol.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

haha..."Freedom and Liberty-minded individuals from all classes of society and race" - aka mostly White Protestants plus some French and Indian allies who won a war and continued the freedom-loving practice of enslaving black Africans.

Come on dude. It's one thing to teach actual history - quite another to completely whitewash it.

Hmm... There were Democrats there at the time who did not want to give up their means of labor. Slaves brought to America by the Brits. As I remember it the Brits also supplied those of the Southern Democratic Confederacy. Blaming those who deserve blaming works for me, but down right racism and bias seems to be the method of the "Progressive Left".

 

[Redress]

Hmm... There were Democrats there at the time who did not want to give up their means of labor. Slaves brought to America by the Brits. As I remember it the Brits also supplied those of the Southern Democratic Confederacy. Blaming those who deserve blaming works for me, but down right racism and bias seems to be the method of the "Progressive Left".

The democratic party of the time wad hardly progressive nor liberal nor anything remotely like today's democratic party. Please study your history.

Oh, the irony...

 

[Occam's Razor]

haha..."Freedom and Liberty-minded individuals from all classes of society and race" - aka mostly White Protestants plus some French and Indian allies who won a war and continued the freedom-loving practice of enslaving black Africans.

Come on dude. It's one thing to teach actual history - quite another to completely whitewash it.

If slavery was pressed at the founding, there would have been no union, no USA, no chance that slaves would be freed at all, that women would have the vote at all, etc. So sick of this b*llsh*t argument that because every societal ill was not addressed at the founding it somehow casts a shadow on the founders.

Their brilliance was in recognizing the things they could agree on and forming a union, and framing it so that future generations could expand the circle of freedom to everyone.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If slavery was pressed at the founding, there would have been no union, no USA, no chance that slaves would be freed at all, that women would have the vote at all, etc. So sick of this b*llsh*t argument that because every societal ill was not addressed at the founding it somehow casts a shadow on the founders.

Their brilliance was in recognizing the things they could agree on and forming a union, and framing it so that future generations could expand the circle of freedom to everyone.

Yep. Revolution followed by evolution is our nation's history. That is not to say that all subsequent change was progress toward the goal of maximizing individual freedom. Because private charity does not afford all that is desired by the poor does not mean that gov't should mandate income redistribution schemes to assure that happens. Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome.

 

[austrianecon]

haha..."Freedom and Liberty-minded individuals from all classes of society and race" - aka mostly White Protestants plus some French and Indian allies who won a war and continued the freedom-loving practice of enslaving black Africans.

Come on dude. It's one thing to teach actual history - quite another to completely whitewash it.

Seriously? Ever hear of Crispus Attucks? Peter Salem? 1st Rhode Island Regiment? Baron Closen? Monmouth? Bucks of America?

Some 5,000 blacks fought on the side of the Patriots. Virgina forced manumission (freeing) of those who fought for the side of the Americans.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Seriously? Ever hear of Crispus Attucks? Peter Salem? 1st Rhode Island Regiment? Baron Closen? Monmouth? Bucks of America?

Some 5,000 blacks fought on the side of the Patriots. Virgina forced manumission (freeing) of those who fought for the side of the Americans.

What? You mean not every black was a slave? LOL... Nice list! Of course, that doesn't diminish those still in bondage, but I too hate blanket statements.

 

[Wiseone]

I think we ought to both recognize that times were different back then and not judge those men for not being quite up to our standards, but at the same time recognize that there were short comings back then and short comings that exist today in our system of government which we should work to improve.

 

[austrianecon]

What? You mean not every black was a slave? LOL... Nice list! Of course, that doesn't diminish those still in bondage, but I too hate blanket statements.

Of course.. I really find it funny when people make statements like that. I also hate when someone tries to "educate" yet ignores prior to Eli Whitney inviting the cotton gin slavery was dying out in America, it wasn't very profitable for slave owners. The cotton gin changed that and nobody in sitting in Philly in 1786 and 1787 couldn't predict the future. Most framers figured Slavery would die out by early 1800s.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I think we ought to both recognize that times were different back then and not judge those men for not being quite up to our standards, but at the same time recognize that there were short comings back then and short comings that exist today in our system of government which we should work to improve.

Times weren't different back then. The same ills plague the human heart that always have. Capital still wants labor for as close to free as possible. They still care not if that means suffering on the part of the laborer, their families, societies, etc. While some of them owned slaves, and could be seen as a shortcoming... they are far ahead of us in recognizing that they themselves were indeed flawed. We can only point to flaws in opposition parties.

No, the human condition, in 10,000 years of civilization, has not and will not ever change.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

The democratic party of the time wad hardly progressive nor liberal nor anything remotely like today's democratic party. Please study your history.

Oh, the irony...

We keep getting the same bull crap from people like you. The "Democratic Party" at the dawn of this nation had the same ideals of slavery at the onset of the Civil War, after that war and during the 20th Century despite the efforts of those in the "Republican Party" and some individual Democrats like Kennedy and Johnson. It still remains truth that the bulk of the voting for equality came from the Conservatives and a minority of Democrats. Proven time and time again through the years. Revisionism is the method of Progressive truth.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

I think we ought to both recognize that times were different back then and not judge those men for not being quite up to our standards, but at the same time recognize that there were short comings back then and short comings that exist today in our system of government which we should work to improve.

What was different when a sitting president reinforced segregation within the federal government, taking rights away from the black population. Then when he pushed for prohibition something Democrats also wanted. Having the KKK presiding over the presidency was a Democratic Party contrivance one hundred years ago. This led to droves of Afro-Americans moving north and to cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Boston.

 

[Wiseone]

What was different when a sitting president reinforced segregation within the federal government, taking rights away from the black population. Then when he pushed for prohibition something Democrats also wanted. Having the KKK presiding over the presidency was a Democratic Party contrivance one hundred years ago. This led to droves of Afro-Americans moving north and to cities like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, and Boston.

Do you know what a "non sequitur" is?

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Do you know what a "non sequitur" is?

Referring to the actions of Woodrow Wilson and his placing the KKK to the forefront of American politics is NOT a non-sequitur. It's part of our history and no one has the right to revise history, including me. Wilson allowed the KKK to march down Pennsylvania Ave. He pushed for and got "Prohibition". He also caused a "Depression". But hey, if you consider that a non-sequitur in American history, go right ahead.
See also:
Woodrow Wilson: Great President or Great Failure?
Woodrow Wilson: Great President or Great Failure? - National American history | Examiner.com

 

[Paschendale]

I think we ought to both recognize that times were different back then and not judge those men for not being quite up to our standards, but at the same time recognize that there were short comings back then and short comings that exist today in our system of government which we should work to improve.

For the most part, they aren't held to our standards. But they knew slavery was wrong then. And they had the opportunity to act and didn't. That women were so unequal at the time is usually not held against them. Racism, segregation, or homophobia wouldn't be held against them, because they were people of their times. But their times included understanding the horrors of slavery. It is not our standards that they failed to live up to. It was their own.

 

[Wiseone]

For the most part, they aren't held to our standards. But they knew slavery was wrong then. And they had the opportunity to act and didn't. That women were so unequal at the time is usually not held against them. Racism, segregation, or homophobia wouldn't be held against them, because they were people of their times. But their times included understanding the horrors of slavery. It is not our standards that they failed to live up to. It was their own.

Well to say "them" is a bit of an inaccuracy to start with, they didnt hold all the same opinion on most if any subject. Not even the British or French had abolished slavery at this point, either the trade or ownership of nor had most other major European powers especially in their overseas holdings.

Sure a lot of them knew slavery was wrong, many of them wanted to end it, but not all of them by any means.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Well to say "them" is a bit of an inaccuracy to start with, they didnt hold all the same opinion on most if any subject. Not even the British or French had abolished slavery at this point, either the trade or ownership of nor had most other major European powers especially in their overseas holdings.

Sure a lot of them knew slavery was wrong, many of them wanted to end it, but not all of them by any means.

I suggest that you read a little about the slave trade, and how many Europeans were sent to North America and Australia came as prisoners and indentured slaves.

Read more:
Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[iliveonramen]

We keep getting the same bull crap from people like you. The "Democratic Party" at the dawn of this nation had the same ideals of slavery at the onset of the Civil War, after that war and during the 20th Century despite the efforts of those in the "Republican Party" and some individual Democrats like Kennedy and Johnson. It still remains truth that the bulk of the voting for equality came from the Conservatives and a minority of Democrats. Proven time and time again through the years. Revisionism is the method of Progressive truth.

Which year did all the conservatives move to the deep south and all the former Jim Crowe supporting liberals move to the coasts and north east?

 

[Wiseone]

I suggest that you read a little about the slave trade, and how many Europeans were sent to North America and Australia came as prisoners and indentured slaves.

Read more:
Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, not really contradicting what I'm saying or even relevent at all.

 

[Redress]

Again, not really contradicting what I'm saying or even relevent at all.

It's weird isn't it? Every single time he is challenged on any facts, he just posts some total non sequitor.

 

[notquiteright]

I suggest that you read a little about the slave trade, and how many Europeans were sent to North America and Australia came as prisoners and indentured slaves.

Read more:
Atlantic slave trade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The link doesn't discuss the prisoners sent to the penal colony of Australia nor the indentured SERVANTS paying their way to North America by promising to work for someone for a certain number of years.

You seem to throw poop and hope something sticks.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

Which year did all the conservatives move to the deep south and all the former Jim Crowe supporting liberals move to the coasts and north east?

Transportation or penal transportation is the sending of convicted criminals to a penal colony. For example, France transported convicts to Devil's Island and New Caledonia, and Great Britain to its colonies in the Americas (from the 1610s until the American Revolution in the 1770s) and Australia (1788–1868).

North America was used for transportation from the early 17th century to the American Revolution of 1776. In the 17th century, it was done at the expense of the convicts or the shipowners. The first Transportation Act in 1718 allowed courts to sentence convicts to seven years' transportation to America. In 1720, extension authorised payments by the state to merchants contracted to take the convicts to America. Under the Transportation Act, returning from transportation was a capital offence.[1][2]

The gaols (jails) became overcrowded and dilapidated ships were pressed into service, the hulks moored in various ports as floating gaols. The number of convicts transported to North America is not verified although it has been estimated to be 50,000 by Dr John Dunmore Lang and 120,000 by Thomas Keneally. These went originally to New England, the majority of prisoners taken in battle from Ireland and Scotland. Some were sold as slaves to the Southern states.[3]

From the 1620s until the American Revolution, the British colonies in North America received transported British criminals. The American Revolutionary War brought that to an end and, since the remaining British colonies in what is now Canada were close to the new United States of America, prisoners sent there might become hostile to British authorities. Thus, the British Government was forced to look elsewhere.

Read more:
Penal transportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia