[Vision2020] Teabaggers

Fri Mar 12 07:32:28 PST 2010

Wayne,

There is certainly nothing wrong with their information just with your ability to read and understand it and what I said.

Here is what I said, 

 "George Washington did not own many slaves, his wife owned most them, she obtained from her previous husband, Daniel Parke Custis a wealthy plantation farmer, upon his death."

I did not say he owned no slaves.

Here is what you said,

"at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves." 

She owned 285 slaves, Washington owned 36. Last I checked, 285 was a much larger number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Washington
Custis, Martha's first husband owned over 285 slaves, which she inherited for herself and her minor son (the other children died young). How many of those 316 slaves do you think were George's, and how many do you think were her slaves?

The slaves Washington "acquired" was with her wealth and sale of the tobacco grown on farm land bought by her. 

You are also dead wrong about Jefferson sleeping with his slaves. DNA testing has proved this to be the case. 

Your Friend,

Donovan Arnold

--- On Thu, 3/11/10, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:

From: Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com>
Cc: garrettmc at verizon.net, "keely emerinemix" <kjajmix1 at msn.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 9:38 PM

Clearly Dr Donovan, you are correct and the Mount Vernon Society ( The folks that OWN Mt. Vernon) are wrong. How could I have been so silly to trust what they said and not you? 

http://www.mountvernon.org/learn/meet_george/index.cfm/ss/101/

"George Washington was born into a world in which slavery was accepted. He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate.", Washington purchased even more slaves. The slave population also increased because the slaves were marrying and raising their own families. By 1799, when George Washington died, there were 316 slaves living on the estate."

On Mar 11, 2010, at 1:28 PM, Donovan Arnold wrote:

Rev. Keely, nobody is defending slavery. Let me say it twice so even you understand, NOBODY is defending slavery. I was just explaining inaccuracies in his (Mr. Price's) posts about Thomas Jefferson sleeping with his slaves and George Washington being a large slave owner. They are factually incorrect statements.

I forgot, accuracy of the facts was not a concern for you, just unfounded misguided displays of fake catty emotional outrage, Keely when slandering people on both the local and national level, living and dead.

Your Friend,

Donovan Arnold

--- On Thu, 3/11/10, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:

From: keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com, garrettmc at verizon.net, "Chris Price" <bear at moscow.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 3:37 PM

This eloquent defense of slave-owning American Presidents is something less than heartening.  It's almost as if we've heard similar arguments before from local folks interested in convincing us that, you know, on the whole, slavery wasn't, like, THAT bad, really.

That George and Thomas are numbered among anti-slavery abolitionists, as appears to be the contention here, is as ludicrous as it is offensive.  They may not have been the absolutely worst slaveholders ever, but I don't think either man's biographies are testimonies to their egalitarian, Christian, progressive morals.

Keely
www.keely-prevailingwinds.com

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:48:58 -0800
From: donovanjarnold2008 at yahoo.com
To: garrettmc at verizon.net; bear at moscow.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers

Wayne,

The tea was tipped overboard not because most people drank it, but because it denied revenue to the British. The average colonists didn't want to be independent from the British, but they were not happy under them either.

The British government prevented western expansion which seriously hindered the expansion of the economy and the well being of many western colonists and farmers.

Thomas Jefferson bought slaves and freed them when they paid their price of purchase off. Many anti-slavery people did this.

Thomas Jefferson did not sleep with his slaves, DNA tests from his know relatives prove this. His brother did sleep with Sally Hemmings, who was the half sister of his wife who passed away and looked a great deal like her. He cared for her greatly and she lived in his house because she was his wife's sister and didn't want her living as a common slave.

George Washington had willed his slaves to be freed upon the death of his wife. Although she freed them earlier because she felt uncomfortable with all the slaves asking if she was dead yet (a little humor, but true). Little do people know, but George Washington did not own many slaves, his wife owned most them, she obtained from her previous husband, Daniel Parke Custis a wealthy plantation farmer, upon his death.

Your Friend,

Donovan Arnold

--- On Thu, 3/11/10, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:

From: Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Teabaggers
To: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thursday, March 11, 2010, 12:52 AM

Garrett, 

While the Tea Bag movement has hijacked the name, I'm not so sure they even realize what the 1770's movements were all about!
The average colonist was happy being British! 

At that time in the colonies, TEA was not the drink of the average (read that as NOT wealthy) colonist.  Rather they drank cider, because they could make
it locally, and could afford it. Ever wonder why real tea chests of the period have a locks on them? Because it was expensive and the rich didn't want the servants to
steal it!   The original so called "patriots" were nothing more than a bunch of folks with money trying to avoid taxes. Sound familiar? 

Same deal with the folks that shot at government troops on their way to and from Lexington and Concord to bring the GOVERNMENT owned arms and powder back 
to Boston, so the colonists/traitors/early american terrorists  couldn't use it. Can you imagine today if that happened? Makes me wonder what would happen if the
average citizens marched on the local National Guard armories so that they could prevent the government from using the arms! Think they would be considered
"patriots"?

I have to laugh when I see the fractured history that  George Nethercutt is trying to sell on TV..... Did the boy never read a history book!  I laughed when I saw one about
George Washington being anti-slavery!  One of the richest slave OWNERS in Virginia at the time! And then there is that scion of colonial america Thomas Jefferson,
he not only owned slaves, but would bed them too!  Or was that just for the benefit of the slaves?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mar 10, 2010, at 3:24 PM, Garrett Clevenger wrote:

Thanks, Joe, you summed up well what I've been thinking. 

It is rather presumptious of the teabaggers to think their "tea party movement" is anything close to the real deal back when the colonies were fighting for independence.

The contemporary tea partiers are more like carpetbaggers in that regard, so it seems "teabagger" is a rather appropriate term.

I have no idea what the sexual definition of teabagger is and don't really care to so when I say "teabagger" I'm describing "tea party" people who are exploiting the patriotism of the Boston Tea Party.

But are we really surprised that people who carry guns in the open to rallies and shout down those who disagree with them would be anything less than arrogant?

Teabaggers, indeed.

Garrett Clevenger=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
              http://www.fsr.net                       
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100312/db7b4a6a/attachment-0001.html 