4th

Simply stated, the answer is “No!” And the following explains why.

The Declaration of Independence asserts, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Despite that, slavery was legal in the 13 colonies, which means 20 percent of the population was held in brutal bondage without liberty or happiness or a real life.

Of the 56 white male property owners who signed that Declaration, 27 were slave-holders, slave-shippers, and/or slave-investors.

Thomas Jefferson- who was the primary drafter of the Declaration of Independence- enslaved 175 Black women, men, and children in 1776 and 267 by 1822. Also, he was a racist pedophile who began raping Sally Hemings when she was 14-years-old. And he impregnated her seven times.

In addition to that, as Governor of Virginia in 1779, he signed a bill to encourage enlistment in the American Revolutionary War by compensating white men by giving them a “healthy sound Negro.”

In his 1785 book entitled Notes on the State of Virginia, he wrote about “the preference of the ‘oran-outan’ (meaning an ape-like creature) for ... Black women over those of ... (its) own species.” He added that Blacks “are inferior to the whites ...” and have “a very strong and disagreeable odor.”

There was language in an early version of the Declaration of Independence that condemned the King of England for kidnapping Africans and shipping them from the Motherland to Europe. That language properly described slavery as “execrable commerce.” However, the men who participated in the drafting of that document realized that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. So those racist hypocrites deleted it.

The battle cry of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence was “Taxation without representation.” They contended that Britain’s requirement that they pay taxes without having any elected representation in the British Parliament would reduce them to the status of “slaves.” They contended this while enslaving human beings themselves. If that’s not the height of historical hypocrisy, nothing is.

America’s history books still fail to mention that Crispus Attucks- the first to die in the so-called Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770, an event that began the violence that would lead to the Revolutionary War- happened to be in that city on that date because he was with a group of laborers on the waterfront. And that was because he was a professional seaman who had been on various ships for 20 years after having courageously escaped slavery. His courage stemmed from what he had learned from his African father and Natick “Indian” mother. But none of that is taught in this country’s schools.

Neither is the fact that 5,000 brave Black men were instrumental in leading America to victory over Britain by 1783. Why aren’t their names and biographies widely publicized?

Maybe it’s because General George Washington initially barred free and enslaved Blacks from serving. But he changed his mind when the British began kicking his butt. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Maybe it’s also because, after Blacks helped win the war for America, many of them were thrown back into American slavery. Incredible!

By the way, July 4th isn’t really Independence Day. July 2nd is. The Second Continental Congress met in Philly on July 1st and then on July 2nd approved a resolution declaring independence. The only thing that happened on July 4th was the approval of an edited version of the Declaration.

In regard to that July 2nd date, John Adams- a drafter, delegate, and Founding Father- wrote to his wife Abigail on that same day, “I am apt to believe that July 2nd, 1776 will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival.”

In 1777, Congress, for the first time ever, considered memorializing that historically pivotal July 2nd date. But there was a problem: Congress considered it two days late, which is why July 4th became the officially recognized date.

Incidentally, most of the delegates didn’t sign the Declaration until August 2nd when John Hancock prominently “graffitied” his name on it. And it wasn’t until November 19 that the final delegate signed it.

Apart from that, there’s a strong argument that even the year 1776 is incorrect since the Revolutionary War officially began on April 19, 1775.

Parenthetically, I should mention that some of the signers weren’t even American. Eight were foreigners from Britain, i.e., the country of the enemy. I wonder if today’s anti-immigrant right-wingers in the U.S. know that. On second thought, I don’t wonder.

Most of what Americans think they know about July 4th and the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War is a lie. For example, Paul Revere never completed his “The Redcoats are coming! The Redcoats are coming!” midnight warning ride. He was captured by the British.

And seamstress Betsy Ross didn’t sew the flag in 1776 (or any other time) after supposedly having met General George Washington. She had absolutely nothing to do with it. Her grandson William Canby completely made up the story nearly a hundred years later in 1870 when he presented false affidavits from family members to the Pennsylvania Historical Society in Philadelphia.

To learn more about the racism of July 4th, of the Declaration of Independence, and of the Revolutionary War, attend the Black Independence Day event organized by Avenging The Ancestors Coalition (ATAC) on Tuesday, July 4th at 3 p.m. at the Slavery Memorial/President’s House at Sixth and Market. For more information, call (215) 552-8751.

Michael Coard, Esquire can be followed on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. His “Radio Courtroom” show can be heard on WURD96.1FM. And his “TV Courtroom” show can be seen on PhillyCam/Verizon/Comcast.

(6) comments

Guest

This is some revisionist history. Not correct. Read this: https://www.heritage.org/american-founders/report/how-understand-slavery-and-the-american-founding

Guest

It's not correct only because you don't want to know the truth

Guest

This is good to know.

Guest

spoken like the true racist

Guest

In addition, the whole fireworks thing is about violence. Violence then (1776) and violence now. The fireworks symbolize the bombs bursting in air (Star Spangled Banner!). Just one more example of violence in this country. And...we fall for it, spending thousands of dollars (to burn for something to go up in smoke...and our communities spend thousands to put on the community fireworks displays. Then, we enjoy the noise that frightens animals and children and in some communities leaves behind trash and smoke for days. And then we say it's being patriotic....and "celebrating" our independence...

flyerd

How about Blacks who owned slaves? Yes it happened. In 1654 Blacks were granted the right to be slaveholders in Virginia and for a short time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade. Nicolas Augustin Metoyer of Louisiana owned 13 slaves in 1830. He and his 12 family members collectively owned 215 slaves. Obviously, all these peoples' descendants will owe reparations right?...maybe they should pay double? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by noted historian Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Obviously white slave owners far exceeded blacks but isn't it interesting that the topic of blacks who "owned" slaves is never addressed...

Here we go...prepare for emotional backflips and heated opinions...

Obviously anyone who could possibly "get some" of this wants it....at least that's the normal way things go. It's refreshing that the Marist poll referenced 35% disapproval of slavery reparations by polled Black people. Granted, that was a 2016 poll and, sadly, peoples emotions/thoughts on things get dramatically influenced by media and celebrities who decide they need/want to push a given topic that they've deemed...in their "infinite wisdom"...cough, cough... to be socially important. But still, kudos to those willing to take a more sensible stance.

So what's the problem with this whole thing?

1. Claimants. This is the sort of thing that would have to have been done immediately after slavery was abolished because guess how many people are currently living who were slaves... Hint: It's a number smaller than 1.

2. Who pays? Obviously the ignorant answer is the white folks. How about latinos? What about Black people who have no ancestral American slaves....do they pay too? How about anyone who immigrated to this greatest country on earth "after" the abolishment of slavery? Even though they had absolutely no ties to slavery are they "on the hook too? What about white people who's ancestors were fighting against slavery back when it was occuring...do they get a pass? Holly crap can any sane people out there see how utterly impossible this is?

This needs a quick address: How about Blacks who owned slaves? Yes it happened. In 1654 Blacks were granted the right to be slaveholders in Virginia and for a short time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade. Nicolas Augustin Metoyer of Louisiana owned 13 slaves in 1830. He and his 12 family members collectively owned 215 slaves. Obviously, all these peoples' descendants will owe reparations right?...maybe they should pay double?

In 1830, the year most carefully studied by noted historian Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves.

Obviously white slave owners far exceeded blacks but isn't it interesting that the topic of blacks who "owned" slaves is never addressed...

3. Is there a type of means test? If two families can trace back an ancestor who was a slave, does a family who found a way to pull themselves up and grab the greatness of American "opportunity" get less than the family who didn't?

4. Divisiveness. If the goal is to accelerate division along racial lines this is a great idea. If we're ever going to get to a place of actual improvement we need to stop with all the racially separating things like (here's where some people lose their minds) the awards shows specifically for Black, Hispanic, etc. people. Talk about continuing racial division, these types of shows expand it.

On that topic, reporting a death by race falls into the same boat. Instead of simply reporting "a 25yr old male was killed by a 32 yr old male" the media is obsessed with identifying the race (moreso when it involves a white and non white). When it's 2 black people or 2 white people you almost never see it listed as such but let their be a difference in skin color and "wham" unleash the sensationalist headlines and "news" leads in the stupid media. Then there's politicians who make idiotic statements like "they're gonna put you all back in chains" or make a shooting incident about race before the blood has dried at the scene (meaning the person inferring a racial undertone has basically ZERO evidence that race played any part whatsoever at that point).

This is certainly a great topic for the attention seeking media and those making their way through life as race baiters but aside from that it's completely asinine.../

P.S. More About Carter G. Woodson (mentioned in #2 above): He was born in 1875 in Virginia, the son of former slaves, Woodson had to put off schooling while he worked in the coal mines of West Virginia. He made it to Berea College, becoming a teacher and school administrator. He gained graduate degrees at the University of Chicago and was the second African American to obtain a PhD degree from Harvard University. Most of his academic career was spent at Howard University in Washington, D.C., where Woodson eventually served as the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. In this era of "victimhood sensationalism" isn't it interesting to acknowledge what hard work can achieve (even to someone born in 1875 and not given "reparations").....

P.P.S. For the tiny few of you who actually made it through this entire thing: Congratulations for having enough intellectual curiosity to overcome the urge to stop after 140 characters...oh yes, it's 240 now isn't it? A wealth of practically nothing can be said within such limits.

(Edited by staff.)

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.