That’s why the “some of the founding fathers actually wanted to end slavery” rhetoric always gets me, they were clearly just as bloodthirsty and hateful as zionists and any examples otherwise were likely just pandering bullshit.
“some of the founding fathers actually wanted to end slavery”
“I swear dude, some of the slave owners who got together with their slave owning allies to make a country full of slaves for other slave owners really wanted to end slavery.”
Eli Whitney inventing the cotton gin like “Wow this machine is so efficient this will surely be the final nail in the coffin of the horrific institution of slavery!”
The problem is that the Amerikkkan narrative requires seeing the “Founding Fathers” as a singular building block of the country rather than as individuals, so we get these broken logics of “if we find some good in one of them then it applies to the whole.” It’s sort of a mirror version of the logic behind the “constitutional originalism” law argument.
Oh, I’d say it’s much worse than that. I guarantee a significant chunk of grown-ass USian adults still believe stuff like George Washington never told a lie. You’d be hard pressed to find a USian that knows actual US history vs the cradle to grave mythological slop that’s poured down their throats.
That’s why the “some of the founding fathers actually wanted to end slavery” rhetoric always gets me, they were clearly just as bloodthirsty and hateful as zionists and any examples otherwise were likely just pandering bullshit.
Also, I guess “some” wasn’t that many, since they obviously didn’t do that.
In at least some fairness, many of them thought slavery was an ultimately doomed institution. And they might even have been right, at the time.
Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793.
Eli Whitney inventing the cotton gin like “Wow this machine is so efficient this will surely be the final nail in the coffin of the horrific institution of slavery!”
The problem is that the Amerikkkan narrative requires seeing the “Founding Fathers” as a singular building block of the country rather than as individuals, so we get these broken logics of “if we find some good in one of them then it applies to the whole.” It’s sort of a mirror version of the logic behind the “constitutional originalism” law argument.
Oh, I’d say it’s much worse than that. I guarantee a significant chunk of grown-ass USian adults still believe stuff like George Washington never told a lie. You’d be hard pressed to find a USian that knows actual US history vs the cradle to grave mythological slop that’s poured down their throats.
George Washington cut down that cherry tree and Henry Ford invented the automobile.
Stahp!
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.
Slavery wasn’t even a deal breaker…they went for the 3/5ths Compromise.
We want to end this institution so badly we’re going to include in our foundational document that you can’t even talk about abolition til 1800