But these time-honored rituals are colliding with a modern Democratic Party more energized by a desire for racial and gender inclusion than reverence for history. And state by state, Democratic activists are removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from party gatherings, saying the two men no longer represent what it means to be a Democrat....
August 11, 2015
"State by State, Democratic Party Is Erasing Ties to Jefferson and Jackson."
"Political candidates and activists across the country have flocked to annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, where speeches are given, money is raised, and the party celebrates its past and its future."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
97 comments:
Too easy.
Well take Tom and may claim Andy for the Battle of New Orleans.
The a-historical donks can reject both Andy and FDR for their treatment of red/yellow people's.
-C
It's instant political correctness.
New public problems are discovered faster than historians can keep up.
I'd suggest history books go to twitter to compete.
That's fine. I think it'll be better when Americans can get back to realizing that people have both good and bad in them, especially historical people, instead of trying to fable-ize history.
That's fine. I think it'll be better when Americans can get back to realizing that people have both good and bad in them
"Through the ages [man] had believed (eyelids fluttering under the mignonettes of modesty) that he was compounded only of good and a minimal amount of evil. Sharply I showed him, by laying bare in broad daylight his heart and life's weave, that on the contrary, he is compounded only of evil and a minimal amount of good which the legislators have difficulty managing to preserve."
- Lautreamont
Well, good. The Donks are finally admitting that they have nothing whatever in common with Jefferson or Jackson.
Jefferson believed in American destiny and expansion. He sent our military to punish muslim terrorists (pirates). He advocated fervently for small businesses and small banks. Jefferson's Cabinet had five members -- State, Treasury, War, Attorney General, and Navy. He believed that the federal government was the servant of the States and existed primarily to guarantee and protect the natural rights of its free citizens.
Jackson shut down that era's equivalent of the Federal Reserve. He ran a budgetary surplus, paid off the national debt completely, and when excess revenue continued he made huge block grants to the States for their use as they wished. He quelled a tax rebellion in South Carolina (which popped up again in 1861), he pushed the Mexicans far back from the key port of New Orleans, he deflated a financial bubble by requiring payment in gold or silver instead of paper or strange bank promises. And he expanded his Cabinet to a whopping six members by adding a Postmaster General.
Do you know any Democrats these days who believe in small business, small banks, small government, balanced budgets, personal financial responsibility, strong States, and robust foreign policy backed up by military action? If you do, please name them.
Or even for that matter, look to Grover Cleveland who vetoed many hundreds of bills with pretty much the same comment: "I find nothing in the Constitution giving Congress the power to legislate in this matter. Or atom-bombing Harry Truman; or tax-cutting, commie-hating JFK.
Wilson, FDR, Carter, Clinton, and Obama have only the very slightest passing resemblance to Jefferson, Jackson, Cleveland, Truman, and JFK ... none of whom would stand a chance of nomination by today's Democrats.
Well Jefferson was an intellectual and Jackson was a man of the people.
So, no, they have little to do with modern Dems.
That's fine. I think it'll be better when Americans can get back to realizing that people have both good and bad in them, especially historical people, instead of trying to fable-ize history.
But we've had decades of, basically, "The USA is always wrong" in colleges.
The "fable-izing" of American history ended long ago.
How about the non-stop denigration eventually cease as well?
They're Mao and Stalin Parties now.
the two men no longer represent what it means to be a Democrat
No shit.
Anger is a difficult political force to harness.
Daley demonstrated long ago you keep the constituents together by buying their leaders getting "stuff" for the constituents.
rhhardin,
Is that from Les Chants de Maldoror?
As far as I know, Maldoror is Lautreamont's only book (get the Lykiard translation). Poesies is published under his real name.
A part of maturity is understanding that we can honor our heroes even when accepting that they have faults. The fact that Dems' heroes must be perfect in their eyes exposes their lack of maturity.
I think I'm going to do that today! I remember reading some excerpts of his poems in my French class, like a million years ago, but I had neither the mastery of the French language nor the life experience to fully comprehend. I think an older, slightly wiser Bobby reading a good English translation will be able to appreciate it much more. Thanks for the tip!
Let's see how far they're willing to go with this. Should the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars change its name? After all, Wilson reintroduced segregation into the federal workforce and hosted the showing of "Birth of a Nation" (about the KKK) in the White House.
How about anything named after FDR who put US citizens of Japanese ancestry into internment camps (one of them was a good friend of mine who was then only 1 year old)? He also denied refuge to Jews fleeing Nazi persecution on the SS Saint Louis.
Who will be good enough? Let's tune in and find out!!!! I'm guessing the only person pure enough will be....Obama.
As the Dems disown them ,the Republicans ought to adopt Jefferson/Jackson as the progenitors of personal liberty and resistance to self-perpetuating political elites.
Oh, I dunno. Democrats are still killing plenty of blascks as cross this nation. Should still room for Jackson st least.
And it feels like only yesterday that John Kerry was making up quotes from Jefferson to justify his own reprehensible behavior.
As cross = across according to Android.
And blascks = blacks
Republicans already have Lincoln-Reagan.
At what point does the modern day Democratic Party erase the "Democratic Party?" Historically, the Democrats were the party of slavery, the Confederacy, Jim Crow, George Wallace, and filibustering the Civil Rights Bill, while the liberal wing of the Democrats tolerated and enabled all this to win elections as late as 1976.
" the only person pure enough will be....Obama."
And the gentle giant, Michael Brown. You can see the lovely memorial sentiment at HuffPo which has a lovely sentiment about the young man's saintly life.
Recall Ronald Reagan's famous line about his party switch: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me."
I'm praying for a Bernie Sanders nomination, but don't expect that to happen.
Several people hereon need to read more history.
And Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama actually have a lot in common - and I do not mean that as complimentary to either person.
But it's the Republicans who have shifted right...
Matthew Sablan: That's fine. I think it'll be better when Americans can get back to realizing that people have both good and bad in them, especially historical people, instead of trying to fable-ize history.
Memory-holing your past is not de-fable-izing. The notion that heretofore we all looked upon such men as immaculate saints is a self-regarding fantasy of infantilized academics, educrats, and political operators - some of whom may have reasons beyond advanced woolly-mindedness for appearing to not understand the distinction between sainthood and great achievement.
It astonishes me that people can't see what's going on here.
I don't know if the plan is to memory-hole them, or just put some distance between them. I don't care much, either way, what politicians do.
Decoupling historical political figures from modern political movements is good for history. Part of why we don't get nearly enough critical analysis of people like FDR is because he is so tightly venerated by modern politicians. Break the cord to the past, and we'll get better, less partisan, history.
Jefferson was of a generation that pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." to a cause which if it failed meant they would swing on a gibbet.
"Blogger Hagar said...
Several people hereon need to read more history.
And Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama actually have a lot in common - "
Oh please tell, we the untutored, how they are alike.
At some point, truth in advertising laws should compel the Democratic Party to change its name.
When will the DemCong disown that racist war-mongering Woodrow Wilson? He inserted the U.S. unnecessarily into a European war and purged the Postal Service of Black Postmasters.
A motto for the Democratic Party of the 21st Century:
"If we seem purer than other men, it is only because we have spat upon the shoulders of giants."
If the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners aren't doing it for them anymore, perhaps everyone can agree to a supper in celebration of Robert Burns, unless that's already been taken.
Thank goodness, they have not erased their ties with Robert Byrd, the KKK Senator from West Virginia.
Rigid ideologues unable to see the contradictions in their own behaviors and statements of beliefs.
MayBee, I'm chuckling at your comment.
The Democrats were always the party of race and racism, and that's never stopped. Today's Dems are the proud followers of their mentors: Wallace, Faubus, Maddox, Folsom. The men who taught Democrats how to use race for political advantage.
Joseph Ellis, in his "American Sphinx," a largely hagiographical biography of Jefferson, in the the last chapter lists a series of Jefferson's public statements vs. his actual behavior and wondered how this could be so, concluding that Jefferson was just so preoccupied thinking high and noble thoughts that he just did not notice the contradictions with his personal actions.
I thought, "Well, you about have to be a Harvard professor to swallow that without gagging."
As for Jackson, his "Justice Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" very well sums up Jackson's regard for the Constitution.
Jefferson was just so preoccupied thinking high and noble thoughts that he just did not notice the contradictions with his personal actions.
Jefferson actually has a great deal of connection with today's Democrats. He died bankrupt and did not free his slaves at his death as Washington did.
"Nothin' here but history"
Becker and Fagen
A part of maturity is understanding that we can honor our heroes even when accepting that they have faults. The fact that Dems' heroes must be perfect in their eyes exposes their lack of maturity.
A bigger problem is that they don't seem to notice how unbelievably terrible their "heroes" tend to be.
Decoupling historical political figures from modern political movements is good for history. Part of why we don't get nearly enough critical analysis of people like FDR is because he is so tightly venerated by modern politicians. Break the cord to the past, and we'll get better, less partisan, history.
I disagree. Historians are trying to spin it terribly even more.
George Washington is one of the few people in history who turned DOWN limitless power. He could've been the King of the US had he so wished to be. He didn't wish for that. That, alone, makes him the greatest man in history. How many others would have done the same? John Adams would've happily been a King here.
To the Left...he's just a slave owner.
Don't need somebody discussing how he was perfect. But in universities, most of the Founders had virtually NO positive attributes, which is insane. Our Founders, luckily, were better than the ones founding most other countries (the modern Progressive movement has somewhat creepy similarities to the Jacobins of the French Revolution) and that is why Fascism has, historically, not come here.
"Historians are trying to spin it terribly even more."
-- Because they're trying to use them to jockey for modern political positioning. This is bad history, and we should be sad for them.
Jefferson freed his surviving children on his death, but not his common law wife.
It was left for his surviving daughter to later free her Aunt Sally.
Jackson and Jefferson did good things of major historical improtance for the good of all races. That Dems cannot accept that they were people of their eras is nekulturny at best.
I don't recall anyone among the Dems ostracizing the Clintons for their rather recent bad behavior. Even Jimmy Carter skipped a Democrat Convention or two, if I recall. But I can't say any Dems ever let Bill baby sit their daughters, or Hillary even speak to their sons. So maybe I'm wrong.
The Dems are not worthy of unbuckling Andrew Jackson's sandals. Thank goodness they are finally releasing Old a Hickory from their pantheon of heroes. They an put in Eric Holder.
Ann has it all wrong: The Democrats are abolishing their ties with those two presidents at the request of the Jefferson and Jackson families.
At least we're all finally equal. Really, who needs history?
Gender inclusion? Did Jefferson and Jackson hate women or something?
Note: There's not the slightest shred of proof that Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the US, fathered children on slaves.
There is strong evidence that one of his family members fathered children on slaves. There is contemporaneous evidence that oen of his male relative (an uncle, I believe) made a habit of "visiting" his slaves quarters.
Evidence that T Jefferson did the same? Zip.
damikesc,
"George Washington is one of the few people who turned down LIMITLESS power. He could've been the King of the US had he so wished to be."
When did he do that? I mean, I know that's what they teach in elementary school because that's how I learned it and my niece just finished the first grade and she told me the same thing. But I can't find a single example of that actually ever happening. The closest thing I can find to Washington rejecting the throne is Lewis Nicola's infamous "Newburgh letter," sent in the spring of 1782, in which he proposes to Washington that the latter become King of the US. Coupled with the "Newburgh Conspiracy" the following year, I think this is where the legend arises. But there's little evidence supporting that, even if Washington had received Nicola's letter favorably (which he did not) and if he had taken advantage of the Newburgh Conspiracy to promote a coup d'etat that would have installed himself on the throne (which, obviously, he did not, and in fact deflated with his legendary speech), that this would have been accepted and supported throughout the new country and that he would have been made some kind of Dictator-For-Life with absolute powers.
Washington was definitely a reluctant leader and he absolutely accepted curbs on the power of Presidential authority that set the country on solid footing for the future. But the whole "he could have been King!" is a bit much, and simply not supported by the facts.
Evidence that T Jefferson did the same? Zip.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Link
Democratic activists are removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from party gatherings, saying the two men no longer represent what it means publicly to be a Democrat....
There, fix it for you. You are welcome...
Matthew Sablan: -- Because they're trying to use them to jockey for modern political positioning. This is bad history, and we should be sad for them.
What's going on here isn't about historical scholarship, good or bad. Your attempt to make it all about what it isn't about at all may explain why you're getting all tangled up here and making less and less sense. You "don't care what politicians do", but at the same time think what politicians do is critically important to the study of history. Apparently if only we could get pols to pretend that the past never happened, or at least that nothing or nobody in the past mattered to the present, we'd finally get some real, non-fable-ized history.
And then you sling this doozy:
Break the cord to the past, and we'll get better, less partisan, history.
What a marvelous sentence. As the SJWs say, "I can't even" begin to explicate its Orwellian splendor.
The king part is over the top fantasy by "the Old Republicans" (Jefferson and his partisans at the time), but some of them may well have believed it. Tempers were that hot and excited.
But Washington certainly could have been reelected and become sort of a "president for life."
Remember Franklin Roosevelt?
But Washington rejected it, not only for consideration of the country, but also for his personal reputation, which he cared deeply about. He had reluctantly accepted being nominated for his first term, and only very reluctantly stood for election again - stated very positively that this was it - and it would have been devastating for him personally to go back on these statements.
Hagar,
Agreed.
Luckily, the Sharpton/Jackson fundraising dinners will do just fine as the new face of the Democrat Party.
I can't wait until we can erase Obama from ever having been president!!!
I think I'm just explaining myself poorly. We don't want politicians pretending the past didn't happen.
We want modern politicians to stop using the past as a bludgeon for modern issues/campaigns. If we were to make it so Republicans didn't have an emotional investment in Reagan and Democrats weren't invested in FDR [and the equally bad reflexive dislike from the other side], we'd get better, non-biased history of both their presidencies.
Modern politicians will, someday, possibly be historical figures we need to view with equal detachment. It will do us good to take an objective look at them, and not view them through lenses tinted by our modern, recent-focused glasses.
Paco Wové said...
A motto for the Democratic Party of the 21st Century:
"If we seem purer than other men, it is only because we have spat upon the shoulders of giants."
That was excellent.
See MadisonMan's link above.
And one thing I agree with Joseph Ellis about: It really does not matter. Monticello was Thomas Jefferson's undisputed domain, and nothing could go on for long there without his approval and consent.
And for those who say, well, he might have fathered one of Sally Hemings' children, but not the others - have you even thought of what you are saying?
"the only person pure enough will be....Obama."
No, Kennedy.
Once more Democrats prove that they read 1984 As an instruction manual instead of a warning.
Why don't the Democrats finally come out loud and proud and wave the hammer and sickle? That is what they are now: Communists. Put a donkey on the hammer and sickle and there is your new, improved SJW Democratic Party banner.
Churchill said that half of what he knew was wrong, but the trouble was he didn't know which half. There are some people at Gallipoli and Dresden who would put his error rate higher than 50%. Well, even if higher, it was a lot higher than leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin who were even bigger disasters for their own people than for those people they conquered.......Jefferson and Jackson were wrong about a lot of things, but they were not a disaster for the nation they governed. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and executed the Louisiana Purchase. Not a bad legacy to leave behind.
Wilson, however, was a total and complete shit. If Teddy Roosevelt had won that election in 1912, the history of the world would have been far different and far better.
The reputations of Democrats seem to be always revised downward. Truman is the one exception. The reputations of Republicans seem to be revised upwards. I'm thinking of Eisenhower, Reagan, and the elder Bush, but my guess is that Nixon someday will receive a more favorable reading......,More people starved to death on collective farms than on slave plantations. Someday historians will take note of the staggering crimes that Communists committed. To future generations the anti communists will look as good as the abolitionists now look to our generation.
But Washington certainly could have been reelected and become sort of a "president for life."
The evidence for Washington deliberately choosing to only stand for two terms on principled grounds is fairly weak. His health had badly deteriorated during his time in office, and he almost died during it. There are extant letters in which he explicitly blames his series of illnesses on the stresses of the office. He didn't feel that he would have lasted too much longer in active politics, and as it was, he died less than three years later, in semi-retirement, despite leaving Hamilton to do all the work of his figurehead command of the army raised during the Quasi-War of 1798.
On the other hand, I think the evidence that Hamilton and the rest of the Cincinnatus Society would have been glad to make their hero an actual constitutional monarch is fairly respectable. Hamilton tried to make the presidency a life term, but his "British" plan didn't even get a vote at the convention. Which, mind you, Washington chaired.
But Jackson certainly does personify what it means to be a Democrat: to be an arrogant asshole who will explode in your face and try to demolish your life if you cross him. Jackson's entire military and political career was one vendetta after another. Things haven't changed for his party.
The false teeth that Washington used were a torture to wear. His vanity demanded that he wear them on ceremonial occasions, which happened a lot when he was President. King George was not so oppressive as his false teeth, and these oppressive false teeth played a significant part of his decision to stand down. He had nothing to lose but his dentures when he declined a third term.......Can anyone name a world leader who was right about more things than Washington? His reputation keeps going up.
You want to renounce Thomas Jefferson because he had slaves. That is heavy duty short sightedness. But Please do democrats. Who are you going to put in his place? Mao?
JFK got us into Vietnam> Renounce him dems. LBJ escalated in Vietnam. And said racist things. Renounce him dems.
Clinton passed DOMA, DADT, deregulated the banks, pushed for low income housing even harder than Bush, and had a long history of holding Iraq to account for WMD's (you know, lying)
Renounce Clinton. Lets have dems renounce all dems who are not perfect socialists. I would LOVE to see that.
Matthew Sablan: We want modern politicians to stop using the past as a bludgeon for modern issues/campaigns.
The problem isn't "using the past", it's letting your enemies dictate how the past should be viewed and what aspect of the past gets to be used as a bludgeon. You know, like that guy who said that thing about the present and the past and the future and the controlling thereof...
"Using the past as a bludgeon" is exactly what the Dems are doing in this "distancing" themselves from Jefferson. This should be bleedin' obvious to the most cursory reader of news articles on this topic. (And the Dems are very good at this. They've had "conservatives" running around squealing to their preferred script for years now.)
If we were to make it so Republicans didn't have an emotional investment in Reagan and Democrats weren't invested in FDR [and the equally bad reflexive dislike from the other side], we'd get better, non-biased history of both their presidencies.
I almost have to admire your obdurate delicacy in insisting that this is about this pretty thing you're talking about, and not the ugly thing actually playing out under our noses.
It is not just that Jefferson owned slaves. It is that he blathered about "all men being created equal," etc., while breeding slaves to sell and living with his dead wife's half sister, while holding her and their children as slaves.
Thomas Jefferson's "enlightenment" was all talk and no wool.
When the Global Warmists take over full control of the government, anyone who ever drove a car will be tossed out of the Democratic pantheon.
Well, soon the Democrats will have a dinner celebrating Joseph Stalin, the godfather of political correctness.
Hagar,
But, to be fair, relative to the time, it wasn't all just talk; there was some wool there. Granted that Jefferson fell far short of the lofty principles that he espoused -- and increasingly so while he was President and then again as he grew older in age. I'm not saying that he wasn't a hypocrite (clearly, he was) or that he didn't even recognize that his hypocrisy existed (all humans, but especially ambitious men seem to have no shortage of that character trait), but that his core ideals could be contrasted with the monarchism and aristocracy of the time, even among many of the leading Enlightenment scholars of the time.
I am afraid your "core ideals" are mostly projection.
Jefferson also served as Wahington's Secretary of State, while actively seeking to undermine the President's policies abroad, and his person as well as his policies at home.
It is diificult to see how such behavior can possibly comport with "principles,"
Hagar,
Well, I never called him principled. And to the extent that he had "principles" which others could fairly and adequately comprehend (then and now), he certainly fell far short of the rhetoric he used to describe them.
But if we turn the crank long enough, sooner or later every historical figure can be distilled into their least noble virtues (or lack thereof) -- certainly, we could do the same with virtually every leading thinker of the Enlightenment, and the end result is to define the "Enlightenment" in such narrow terms that its definition would be of little to no value to historians. Do things have to become simplified in order to better explain them? Maybe, maybe not, but I think it's fair to take a balanced approach and acknowledge that Jefferson was an imperfect human being, full of contradictions and downright depravity, who nonetheless made some very positive contributions to American history.
Alternately, one could do as the Muslims and simply excise the inconvenient parts and make it heretical for anyone to even allude to them, but I think we'd both be in agreement that this would not be a good thing, either.
This is fun. I think Alinsky talked about holding the other side to their own standards.
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress.
Along with Jefferson and Jackson, the Democrats must denounce and renounce JFK for cutting taxes on the rich and supporting supply-side economics!
"Muslims" = Progressives?
Some things are. pretty simple. Just "yes" or "no."
Bay Area Guy,
The problem with that is that liberals will retort that JFK didn't reduce the rates to contemporary levels. JFK's planned tax cuts would only have reduced the bottom rates from 20% to 14%, the top rates from 91% to 65%, and the corporate tax rates from 52% to 47% (note that the lowered rates actually established by the Revenue Act of 1964 was actually slightly less favorable to the taxpayer than JFK's proposal) -- they would cheerfully see those rates again, at least on the "selfish" rich and "evil" corporations. Taken out of context, JFK's quote is great, but then it's also a strawman.
Hagar,
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one!
I assume Jefferson and Jackson would be pleased.
Ain't your Mom and Dad's Democrat party.
Most importantly, Jackson and Jefferson, whatever their other flaws, are associated with a political philosophy of limited government. Today's "liberal" State-fellators can't abide that.
People around the country probably are about the same as they have always been.
These fads mainly affect the chattering classes.
I began my medical practice when the tax rates were 91% for the top tier. Nobody paid them.
That is what made them tolerable. Nobody paid them. It was fiction created by Roosevelt to punish the businessmen who hated him. Then the war began and he needed them.
Nobody in the Democratic Party seems to know that history.
This is fun. I think Alinsky talked about holding the other side to their own standards.
“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”
You heard what Bernie said about guns and illegal immigration? He must be purged!
Coming soon: The Sharpton-Clinton dinners, featuring Wagyu beef, arugula, and champagne cocktails, and where the waitresses will be molested and the diners will chew-and-screw.
It won't be long before the dems start calling Jefferson & Jackson "conservatives".
It's SOP for the left to "airbrush" people into and out of history.
This is fun. I think Alinsky talked about holding the other side to their own standards.
The problem is, the Left has no standards.
So when are they going to ditch Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd?
We won't know whether the Democrats will ever face the real music until they hold a fundraiser called the 1st Annual Joseph Stalin Memorial Dinner and Show Trial.
Mark Levin had a great segment on this.
Sammy Finkelman said...
"the only person pure enough will be....Obama."
No, Kennedy.
No. Kennedy didn't raise the income tax. He was a fiscal conservative.
FDR
gregq said:
There is strong evidence that one of his family members fathered children on slaves. There is contemporaneous evidence that one of his male relative (an uncle, I believe) made a habit of "visiting" his slaves quarters.
Evidence that T Jefferson did the same? Zip.
That 'uncle' was TJ's brother Randolph, who is the mostly likely candidate to be the father of Sally Heming's children who carried the Jefferson DNA. A few quick points:
- There were at least 25 men who carried the Jefferson DNA who lived close to Monticello; any one of them could have been the father. When TJ was at Monticello, these men were even more likely to be at Monticello, as well.
- Randolph was not the intellectual that TJ was: he was basically the 18th century version of a 'rich party boy'. When at Monticello, Randolph would often socialize with the slaves, spending much of the night partying, dancing, and playing the fiddle. TJ did not socialize with the slaves.
- TJ's overseer denied that TJ was the father of any slave children, and said he say a certain other male family member come out of Sally's cabin many times.
- TJ was already feeling the ravages of age by the time Sally's younger children were conceived. By contrast, Randolph was more than 12 years younger and had no infirmities.
- The fact that TJ did not free Sally upon his death (despite freeing other slaves) is a point against them having a relationship. Men who had slave mistresses usually freed them, or at the very least gave them 'their time' (allowed them to continue to live on the plantation and be provided for, but had no duties or chores).
Post a Comment