Pretty much. I mean he cleary refferred to it as evil. So that is not a glowing endorsement of any means. This one is rock solid to anyone with a basic understanding of linguistics.
No we understand the linguistics. We are disagreeing on whether it was necessary. And you still haven't asked why Cotton believes we learn history through statues and base names. He has a Harvard degree. He should know that people learn history through reading.
I wonder if Senator Cotton thinks abortion is a necessary evil to keep children out of of an environment where they are not welcome.
I don't know why you think I will defend his statue stance... i don't care or know what he has said. Ask him yourself. Also you are missing the concept of neccessity. It was neccessary to be left in place in order to shore up the southern colonies. No one is saying it was neccessary to bring slaves over and start such an evil practice. That is where yall are falsely taking it.
No we could have shored up the southern states by force like what we did with the Civil War but do it 50-100 years earlier. The people in the country just didn't have the will at the time. Necessary my ass. In fact that would probably benefit the South in the long run as they would be forced to industrialize like the North and you wouldn't see third world level metric in many southern states today like Alabama and Mississippi. Slavery made the South lazy (excluding the slaves obviously. They were kinda forced not to be lazy).
All 13 colonies had slavery, it was not a "necessary evil" for unity, but according to Cotton, a "necessary evil" to build a nation, which is what the slaves did - provide cheap labor to help white men get rich. If you don't think it's f'd up that you are trying to defend this, then I feel sorry for you.
It seems the phrase originated from the article below... and as I read through it... Isn’t this censorship? https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jul/26/bill-by-cotton-targets-curriculum-on-slavery/ WASHINGTON — A New York Times-based school curriculum emphasizing American slavery instead of American independence has been targeted by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton. The Little Rock Republican introduced legislation Thursday that would prevent the use of federal tax dollars to spread the historical reinterpretation in the nation’s classrooms. While labeling 1776 as the nation’s “official birth date,” the 1619 Project seeks “to reframe American history by considering what it would mean to regard 1619 as our nation’s birth year.” Timed to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the arrival of African slaves in the Virginia colony, the 1619 Project was launched last year by the Times. Arguing that it is “finally time to tell our story truthfully,” the project “aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.” The project’s mastermind, Nikole Hannah-Jones, was awarded this year’s Pulitzer Prize for commentary. A curriculum based on the project, which includes essays, poems, photographs and short fiction by a variety of contributors, was also created. The result of a partnership between the Times and the nonprofit Pulitzer Center, the curriculum is intended for use in primary and secondary schools nationwide. COTTON’S PROPOSED LAW If the Saving American History Act of 2020 becomes law, however, school districts using the 1619 Project curriculum could face financial consequences. Cotton’s legislation labels the project “a distortion of American history.” “The 1619 Project is left-wing propaganda. It’s revisionist history at its worst,” he said in an interview Friday. Hannah-Jones did not respond to a request for comment Friday. In a tweet, she said Cotton’s bill “speaks to the power of journalism more than anything I’ve ever done in my career.” In a written statement, Times spokesman Jordan Cohen said the project “is based in part on decades of recent scholarship by leading historians of early America that has profoundly expanded our sense of the colonial and Revolutionary period. Much of this scholarship has focused on the central role that slavery played in the nation’s founding.” Recent scholarship “has helped challenge prevailing narratives about our founding that prioritized the ideals of the Revolution while paying scant attention to historical realities.” In her introductory essay, Hannah-Jones suggests that the Revolution was a reaction to the British abolition movement, arguing that “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery [and]…ensure that slavery would continue.” That “fact,” she said, has been “[c]onveniently left out of our founding mythology.” Critics say many of the leading revolutionaries opposed slavery. New England, cradle of the revolution, was also a stronghold for anti-slavery sentiment, they say. Five renowned historians — Sean Wilentz and James McPherson of Princeton, Brown University’s Gordon Wood, Victoria Bynum of Texas State University and James Oakes of the City University of New York Graduate Center — challenged Hannah-Jones’ premise last year, and urged the Times to “issue prominent corrections of all the errors and distortions presented in The 1619 Project.” The Times defended the project, but later walked back one key claim. Preservation of slavery, it now states, was a key motivator for just “some of the colonists.” While lauded by the Pulitzer judges, the 1619 Project has been condemned by many conservatives, including President Donald Trump. Now it’s under fire in the U.S. Senate as well. FEDERAL FUNDS THREATENED If Cotton’s legislation passes, school districts that embrace the curriculum would no longer qualify for federal professional development funds, money that is intended to improve teacher quality. Federal funding would also be lowered slightly to reflect any “cost associated with teaching the 1619 Project, including in planning time and teaching time.” Funds tied to low-income or special-needs students would not be affected. The secretaries of Education, Agriculture and Health and Human Services would create “prorated formulas” to determine the size of the reduction in federal money for schools adopting the curriculum. “It won’t be much money,” Cotton said. “But even a penny is too much to go to the 1619 Project in our public schools. The New York Times should not be teaching American history to our kids.” Capitol Hill isn’t the place where curriculum decisions are typically made, Cotton acknowledged. If educators want to use the materials, they’ll still be free to do so, he said. “Curriculum is a matter for local decisions and if local left-wing school boards want to fill their children’s heads with anti-American rot, that’s their regrettable choice. But they ought not to benefit from federal tax dollars to teach America’s children to hate America,” he said. ....
“We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction,” he said. That is what he said. He didn't refer to it as evil, he said AS the found father said, it was the necessary evil... I can't read his mind, but his use of "as" could be interpreted that he agrees to it. I initially read it like that. But does he meant it that way? I have no idea. Even if he does, as a politician, I don't think he would show that card. I think he probably didn't intent it that way, at least not to the public. BTW, did the founding fathers ever said slavery was a necessary evil? Given that slavery was common during their time, they might have not even consider it as an evil.
" '1774’ Review: The Year That Changed the World": https://www.wsj.com/articles/1774-review-the-year-that-changed-the-world-11582303285 ‘1774’ Review: The Year That Changed the World What shocked colonists like George Washington into war? Britain’s imperious actions in Boston. By Gordon S. Wood Updated Feb. 21, 2020 6:30 pm ET The 1619 Project, launched in August 2019 by the New York Times and designed to revise the teaching of American history in schools, claims that one of the primary reasons the Americans decided to declare independence from Great Britain in 1776 was to protect their institution of slavery. To back up this remarkable claim, the editor of the New York Times Magazine, where the project first appeared, cited the November 1775 proclamation of Lord Dunmore, the royal governor of Virginia, offering freedom to any enslaved person fleeing to the British army—a military expedient only. Then, to confirm the importance of this proclamation, the editor quoted the words of historian Jill Lepore from her recent history of the United States: “Not the taxes and the tea, not the shots at Lexington and Concord, not the siege of Boston; rather, it was this act, Dunmore’s offer of freedom to slaves, that tipped the scales in favor of American independence.” Mary Beth Norton, in her new book, “1774,” suggests otherwise. Her account of the long year 1774, from the Boston Tea Party in December 1773 to the outbreak of hostilities in April 1775, shows conclusively that the scales had been tipped in favor of independence long before Dunmore issued his proclamation. Ms. Norton, who is professor of history at Cornell and a former president of the American Historical Association, does not fundamentally challenge the traditional trajectory of events in that decisive year. What she does do is enrich the narrative, filling in the story with a staggering amount of detail based on prodigious research in an enormous number of archives. She doesn’t just tell us how many pounds of tea (“nearly 600,000”) the East India Co. placed on seven ships sailing to Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston, S.C., in late 1773, but she describes the kind of tea that was sent: “1,586 chests of Bohea, 70 chests of Congou, 290 chests Singlo, 70 chests of Hyson, and 35 chests of Souchong.” Some readers might think this is specification run wild. But for Ms. Norton this is the point of her book. She wants to re-create as much as possible the past reality of this momentous year in all of its particularity. Only then, she suggests, will we come to appreciate the complexity of what happened and to understand all of the conflicts, divisions and confusion that lay behind events, like the Tea Party, that historians highlight and simplify. At times she relates events week by week, and occasionally day by day. She seeks to be as inclusive as possible and tries to incorporate all the varying points of view in her narrative. She seems to have read every newspaper in the period, and she delights in describing the give and take of debates between patriots and loyalists that took place in the press. By the early 1770s, the crisis between Great Britain and its colonies that had begun with the Stamp Act in 1765 seemed to have eased. Faced with mobs and boycotts of British goods, the British government had twice backed away from trying to tax the colonists. It had repealed the Stamp Act in 1766, and, in 1770, it had withdrawn the Townshend duties, keeping only the duty on tea as a symbol of Britain’s authority to tax the colonists. This proved to be a big mistake. The Americans had generally ignored or dismissed this remaining duty on tea until the British inadvertently called attention to it, and disaster followed. In 1773 the British government decided to bail out a nearly bankrupt East India Co. by giving it a monopoly of the American market for tea. Although the British government had not intended this Tea Act as a means of forcing the colonists to accept Parliament’s right to tax them, Americans interpreted it that way. Ms. Norton painstakingly describes the colonists’ emerging opposition to the imported tea. The opposition took different forms in each of the ports, in some cases forcing the resignations of the merchants consigned to receive the tea, in others compelling the ships carrying the tea to sail back to England with their cargoes intact. Boston was different. The consignees refused to resign, and Gov. Thomas Hutchinson, a stickler for the law that prevented any ship once docked from departing without paying duties, refused to allow the tea ships to sail back to England with their cargoes. On Dec. 16, 1773, the night before the tea was to be unloaded and taxed, a band of men disguised as “Mohawks” threw 342 chests containing more than 46 tons of tea worth more than £9,000 into Boston Harbor. This became the famous “Tea Party.” The colonists’ reaction to this destruction of private property was immediate but mixed, some condemning it, others celebrating it, with many remaining uneasy and uncertain about what to say or do. Although nearly all Americans remained adamantly opposed to paying tea duties, many suggested that Boston, or perhaps all the colonies, ought at least to pay for the destroyed tea. Many colonists outside of New England worried that the hot-headed Bostonians were much too rash and violent. But, of course, the British government came to the rescue of the Bostonians’ reputation. British leaders were furious at the destruction of the tea. They had for far too long appeased the colonists, repealing acts of Parliament and retreating at every sign of colonial opposition. It was high time, the government declared, to show the colonists the power the British nation could wield over its dependencies. The British government passed a series of acts—acts that were so severe, so uncompromising, so drastic, that they fundamentally altered the imperial debate and forever changed the relationship between Britain and its colonies. The government closed the port of Boston, ordered Thomas Hutchinson back to England, and appointed a military general, Thomas Gage, as the new royal governor of Massachusetts. The closing of the port of Boston shocked all the colonists, but Virginians especially. They had been upset at the clandestine destruction of private property, but the British reaction was too much to take. George Washington declared that “the cause of Boston. . . now is and ever will be considered as the cause of America.” Many colonists suggested a meeting of all the colonies to deal with the crisis. The British government followed with two more acts that made matters worse. The first altered the Massachusetts charter by having the council, the middle branch of government, appointed by the Crown rather than elected by the two houses of the colony’s legislature; and it forbade towns to hold more than one meeting a year without permission. The second, dubbed the Murder Act by the colonists, provided that military or customs officials who killed colonists in the performance of their duties would be brought to England for trial rather than face biased colonial juries. The other colonies realized at once that, if Britain could coerce Massachusetts in this outrageous manner, it could do the same to them. The Massachusetts citizens forced the resignations of most of those appointed to the council, ignored the prohibition on town meetings and effectively closed the colony’s courts. In September a dispirited Gen. Gage told the colonial secretary in London that “civil government is near its end.” And the fever was spreading. No one, he later reported, could have imagined that the acts designed for Massachusetts alone “could have created such a ferment throughout the continent and united the whole in one common cause.” As the colonies gathered together in a Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September 1774, New Englanders were actually preparing to fight. When a rumor spread that British troops had killed some Bostonians, as many as 20,000 men from various parts of New England mobilized to march on Boston before they learned that the rumor was false. Although Americans in the other colonies were not as jittery as the New Englanders, many realized that the imperial relationship was disintegrating. Whatever royal authority was left in the colonies now simply disappeared. The royal governors stood in helpless astonishment as new, informal, extra-legal governments sprang up around them. These committees and conventions assumed many of the powers of government. Those loyal to the royal governments argued in the press that these extra-legal bodies were dangerous, treasonous and tyrannical, and the patriots responded by justifying their tar-and-feathering and other oppressive actions as expressions of the people’s will. In her detailed descriptions of these debates, Ms. Norton always gives a fair hearing to the views of the loyalists. more
conclusion: The Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia could not have reversed the massive transfer of authority taking place in the localities, even if it had wanted to. The Congress simply recognized the new local authorities and gave them its blessing. It established the Continental Association that oversaw the nonimportation, nonexportation and nonconsumption of British goods, and it gave local committees of observation and inspection in the counties, cities and towns the authority to enforce the boycotts and to condemn publicly all violators as “the enemies of American liberty.” Without intending to, the Congress in effect legitimated mob rule in the local communities. In January 1775 the colonists learned of the king’s response to their appeal for a redress of their grievances. In his speech to the opening of Parliament, George III put an end to the hopes of many colonists for reconciliation. He spoke of the “most daring spirit of resistance, and disobedience to the law” in Massachusetts and the way in which “fresh violences” there had been “countenanced and encouraged” by the other colonies. He told the Parliament of the determination of his government to uphold its authority. His ministry sent military reinforcements to Boston and ordered Gen. Gage to use force against the Massachusetts rebels if necessary. The British government thought it was dealing with “a rude rabble” that had no substantial backing in the colony and could be put down with ease. Given this kind of misperception of reality, it was inevitable that a military clash would occur, as it did on April 19 in Lexington and Concord. “By April 19, 1775,” concludes Ms. Norton, “Americans had not yet formally adopted a Declaration of Independence, but their leaders had long since practiced independence in thought and deed.” The colonists didn’t need Tom Paine in his “Common Sense” of January 1776 to tell them that the time was ripe for breaking away from Great Britain. In 1774 Americans had already in fact become independent, as Ms. Norton’s book makes only too clear. And never once in her detailed account of that long year does she declare that the protection of slavery had anything to do with bringing about that independence. —Mr. Wood is the author of “Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson” as well as many other books.
One thing I learned in school in an African American Studies class that is important to remember when discussing the history of slavery here is slavery was an economic phenomenon in the beginning As it began to be morally challenged then racism comes along to continue its justification i.e. blacks are sub human, the religious justification etc.
Another day, another Republican exposes himself or herself as a racist and a deplorable human being. It seems Republicans are having their very own race to the bottom where they compete to see who can make the most deplorable, disgusting comment on a daily basis. The entire party deserves to walk in the political wilderness until some of them have the guts to make necessary reforms.
so how is it necessary? is that the best you guys can think of to unite the south? LOL people uniting around something EVIL ARE EVIL people trying their best to justify EVIL ARE EVIL
