Shall Yale University Be Razed To The Ground!

"Elihu Yale (5 April 1649 – 8 July 1721) was a British merchant, philanthropist and slave trader, President of the East India Company settlement in Fort St. George, at Madras, and a benefactor of the Collegiate School in the Colony of Connecticut, which in 1718 was renamed Yale College in his honor.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elihu_Yale

Obviously, as Yale was named after a notorious slave trader, the university must be razed to the ground.  Anyone who graduated from this infamous institution must be accounted as only holders of a high school education. 

TRUTH -- THE NEW HATE SPEECH!

Original Post

Don't forget Brown University:

A long-awaited report on Brown University’s 18th-century links to slavery should dispel any lingering smugness among Northerners that slavery was essentially a Southern problem.

The report establishes that Brown did indeed benefit in its early years from money generated by the slave trade and by industries dependent on slavery. It did so in an era when slavery permeated the social and economic life of Rhode Island. Slaves accounted for 10 percent of the state’s population in the mid-18th century, when Brown was founded, and Rhode Island served as a northern hub of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, mounting at least 1,000 voyages that carried more than 100,000 Africans into slavery over the course of a century.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/opinion/23mon3.html

And don't forget other universities and colleges for the "elite":

A few years ago, Brown University commissioned a study of its own historical connection to the Atlantic slave trade. The report found that the Brown family — the wealthy Rhode Island merchants for whom the university was named — were "not major slave traders, but they were not strangers to the business either."

So you might think that Brown — or the College of Rhode Island, as it was known in the early days — would figure prominently into Craig Steven Wilder's new book Ebony & Ivy: Race, Slavery, and the Troubled History of America's Universities. And while Brown does make an appearance, so does Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Yale, Dartmouth, Pennsylvania, and William and Mary.

http://www.npr.org/sections/co...-most-elite-colleges

Some believe in a great conspiracy. Unlike them, I see no great cabal, but a confluence of interests.  The wealthy donors want cheap labor.  The unions want new members.  The Democrat party wants new voters, whether they are legal, or not.  Which does re-enforce my statement of the Democrat party being the oldest organized criminal syndicate in the US.  

Something related to Yale & all the History being removed or destroyed around the country, by few select minorities, in the name of Justice or Revenge.

Yale Erases History: Campus Statue Covered Up to Appeasing Activist Mob

Yesterday, I read how the Head Librarian (Susan Gibbons) convinced others at Yale to remove the Puritan’s musket image next to an Indian holding a Bow. (This is a Stone Carved Image) Located at the Entrance of the Library. Deemed it Inappropriate Art Work. Check out Photo: The Musket of the Puritan was covered up with a layer of stone.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...peasing-activist-mob

Dire: You are correct, As the article above states, Yale’s founder was a slave trader & the whole university will have to change its name and remove every trace of the man who established the education facility for higher learning. Activist will demand & so shall ye receive.

Dumbing Down America Continues. Democrats = "Its Never Enough"

uandurine posted:

It seems odd to me that the extreme left wants to eliminate all things related to slavery but, at the same time wants illegal immigrates here to work for less than livable wages;  It kind of looks like a form of slavery.

That is exactly the same as the economic system of share cropping that came about after the unCivil War. Those poor slaves released from Southern landowners wound up as slaves to carpet bagger land owners after plantation owners lost their properties due to taxes.

It's long been known by Southern historians that New England's boat builders were slavers while business was good.  When the importation of slaves was banned in the early 1800s, New England became abolitionists.

Quote from the article below:

Almost all of colonial America’s slave ships originated in New England.

New England and the African Slave Trade

https://www.choices.edu/resour...slavery_reading1.pdf

Nothing surprises me about Yankee hypocrisy.

 

Actually even after the shipping of slaves from Africa officially ended, Yankee traders still profited legally from slavery by exporting slaves from the more northern southern states to the more southern states when the economics started failing on the tobacco plantations. And then there was the illegal slave trade:

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.

In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way -- which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual -- except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.

Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.

http://slavenorth.com/profits.htm

budsfarm posted:

The historical omission of the Yankee participation in the slave trade ranks right up with the lies that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves and Black Lives Matter.

 

Probably the biggest lie was the war was all about slavery. A large number of slave owners fought for the North and more than a few northerners fought for the South because one of the major reasons for the war was whether states had the right to leave the national government. Probably the biggest reason people fought the war was that the North invaded the South and likewise people in the North feared the South would do the same. It's not shameful to fight for ones family and friends to protect them from invaders.

West Point taught its cadets that states had the right to leave the Union, voluntarily.  That's one reason none were tried for treason, besides the declared war requirement under the constitution.

After the slave trade ended, northern traders switched to shipping cotton from the south to northern cotton mills.  Competing British shippers shipped cotton to the British mills.  Southern planters thought themselves so important to the European economy that King Cotton would win the war for them.  Unfortunately, cotton was bought and hoarded before the war, so scarcity didn't effect the economy.  In time Brits grew cotton in their Egyptian colony to replace southern cotton. 

Where to begin?

No, it was not against the Constitution to succeed from the US pre the War of Northern Aggression.  Long prior to South Carolina, Massachusetts threaten to do so.

Until the battle of Antietam / Sharpsburg, it was Lincoln's War to preserve the Union [illegally].  Afterward, the Yankee battle plan never surviving first contact with the Confederates, Lincoln revived Great Britain's King George's American Revolutionary War plan to free the slaves upon service to the Crown in the form of the EP so dependent was the Yankee army upon "citizenship upon service" of immigrants who [oh yeah] came to America to free the slaves.

England offered manufactured goods cheaper than Southerners could buy [tax]  from the north.  Basically, the northern cotton shippers had no cotton to ship from the South.  It was Southern cotton that bought the British Enfield and the CSS Alabama.

But did the South depend too heavily on King Cotton?  Yep.  We were a monoculture at the time.  To a lesser degree, not too long ago it was tobacco.  Today, we harbor manufacturers and multi-agri-business.

Today, the slaves are Democrat party-liners.  Joe Biden threatened to "put y'all back in chains."

Remember?

 

budsfarm posted:

Where to begin?

No, it was not against the Constitution to succeed from the US pre the War of Northern Aggression.  Long prior to South Carolina, Massachusetts threaten to do so.

Until the battle of Antietam / Sharpsburg, it was Lincoln's War to preserve the Union [illegally].  Afterward, the Yankee battle plan never surviving first contact with the Confederates, Lincoln revived Great Britain's King George's American Revolutionary War plan to free the slaves upon service to the Crown in the form of the EP so dependent was the Yankee army upon "citizenship upon service" of immigrants who [oh yeah] came to America to free the slaves.

England offered manufactured goods cheaper than Southerners could buy [tax]  from the north.  Basically, the northern cotton shippers had no cotton to ship from the South.  It was Southern cotton that bought the British Enfield and the CSS Alabama.

But did the South depend too heavily on King Cotton?  Yep.  We were a monoculture at the time.  To a lesser degree, not too long ago it was tobacco.  Today, we harbor manufacturers and multi-agri-business.

Today, the slaves are Democrat party-liners.  Joe Biden threatened to "put y'all back in chains."

Remember?

 

It's funny how what's old is new again with the secession movement in California:

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...gathering-signatures

And I might also note that Andrew Jackson promised to send troops and to hang the leaders of the secessionist movement protesting the Tariff of 1828 (Tariff of Abominations) if they followed through with their threat. But then again Jackson didn't have much use for the Constitution:

The Supreme Court has made its decision, now let them enforce it.

— Andrew Jackson

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×