Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Jefferson owned 100's of slaves, they are tearing down Jefferson statues, and you think those liberals would do something like that?Washington defended the interests of moneybags, big industrialists and slave owners, he acted against the common American people in the interests of the pro-British left imperialists. He is not worthy of having the capital named after him. A worthy candidate is Jefferson, defender of Liberty and the American people.
I think there is some kind of scam here. I read that Washington was the representative of big capital and slave owners. Jefferson was against him. If Jefferson had slaves, then he wanted to free them in future.Jefferson owned 100's of slaves, they are tearing down Jefferson statues, and you think those liberals would do something like that?
Think about what you just said. You are making a case using your own opinion, in light ofI think there is some kind of scam here. I read that Washington was the representative of big capital and slave owners. Jefferson was against him. If Jefferson had slaves, then he wanted to free them in future.
It's Rupol........ At least he's worth some laughs.Jefferson owned 100's of slaves, they are tearing down Jefferson statues, and you think those liberals would do something like that?
Jefferson was a great man but like all the founding fathers had some big flaws. He tried to eliminate slavery at the founding but failed, even though he owned hundreds of slaves. He also impregnated one of his slaves (Sally Hemings) several times.Washington defended the interests of moneybags, big industrialists and slave owners, he acted against the common American people in the interests of the pro-British left imperialists. He is not worthy of having the capital named after him. A worthy candidate is Jefferson, defender of Liberty and the American people.
I recently read a serious book by some political scientist, it is in Russian, so I will not post it. But it was all right there. If Jefferson was against big capital and slave owners, then there is some kind of forgery here. Either he did not have the opportunity to release the slaves, or he did not have them.Jefferson owned 100's of slaves, they are tearing down Jefferson statues, and you think those liberals would do something like that?
No! Jefferson had slaves.Washington defended the interests of moneybags, big industrialists and slave owners, he acted against the common American people in the interests of the pro-British left imperialists. He is not worthy of having the capital named after him. A worthy candidate is Jefferson, defender of Liberty and the American people.
These are completely different forces, do not mix them. Jefferson was an anti-Federalist, supporter of Liberty, Washington was a British litter. It's just the difference between the real right and the left in the USBoth Washington and Jefferson had slaves, and they should both be cancelled.
Maybe renaming those towns in honor of real American heroes like George Floyd or Freddie Gay?
Washington defended the interests of the slave owners. Most likely it "liberation" invented under Roosevelt, and if it was, it was pure populism.Jefferson was a great man but like all the founding fathers had some big flaws. He tried to eliminate slavery at the founding but failed, even though he owned hundreds of slaves. He also impregnated one of his slaves (Sally Hemings) several times.
His ”all men are created equal“ loses its effectiveness when blacks were enslaved. Plus he failed to grant freedom to all his slaves upon his death, as Washington did.
These are completely different forces, do not mix them. Jefferson was an anti-Federalist, supporter of Liberty, Washington was a British litter. It's just the difference between the real right and the left in the US
Jefferson is an anti-federalist and you're a liar
