Quote (fender @ 3 Nov 2019 20:00)
because when you're a slave girl it's a totally realistic option to just start a new life in a foreign country. rape and slavery apologists will never cease to amaze me with their outlandish excuses.
the whole 'look daddy, jefferson said it as well' thing, blaming the people who look too closely in order to deflect from the actual issue, was already the same stupid argument you failed with, so you insisting that the context provided to that quote is ad hom is kind of... well, whatever you have to tell yourself i guess.
you're still pretending like it was a fact that he raped her, although it isnt. and I'm not apologizing slavery - all I'm doing is insist on differentiating. not every slave owner was a brutal monster who was whipping his slaves across the cotton fields all day while chain-raping the females at night.
slavery was horrible and should have been gone a lot earlier than it did, but I refuse to discredit all the other good things the founding fathers did over their participation in it. they were a product of their time. perspective is not an excuse, but still important when assessing historical figures.
the attempts at deconstructing the entire legacy of the founding fathers over slavery by the far-left are ridiculous. this becomes very apparent when you look at the fact that torture and the death penalty (for non-capital crimes) are nowadays not considered acceptable either, and almost every general and ruler in pre-1800 history used them to varying degrees, yet there are no attempts at discrediting historical figures over it. virtually all historical figures with an ambiguous track record are granted an ambiguous assessment, and are allowed to be celebrated if their achievements were big enough (.e.g. Churchill and Napoleon) - only the founding fathers shall not be afforded this ambiguity according to the far left.