Nope. But i do appreciate your narrow range of put downs, your inability to defend your position on the merits, and your selective appreciation for the importance of historical study. I’ll enjoy it next time you invoke said history in one of your poorly written legal briefs.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
You’re not my enemy ilya. And there’s absolutely nothing I could say to you that would be more devastating or revealing than you, a self-proclaimed libertarian, proclaiming yourself uninterested in the history of the greatest conflict over liberty this nation has ever known.
6 replies 44 retweets 648 likes -
Replying to @AdamSerwer @ishapiro and
I'm all for examining history. But how did the preposterous claim that the American Revolution was motivated partly by fear that Britain would abolish slavery get past an editor?
26 replies 25 retweets 155 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @AdamSerwer and
That's a contestable claim but not an absurd one. It's argued among other places in this book(which was praised by some top historians of colonial America):https://books.google.ca/books?id=Wa9eun5ElEgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Slave+Nation:+How+Slavery+United+The+Colonies+And+Sparked+The+American+Revolution,+by+Alfred+and+Ruth+Blumrosen.&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8hfrmvo3kAhXEmq0KHZvWCg4Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=false …
4 replies 2 retweets 92 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @AdamSerwer and
The original draft of the Declaration of Independence included a paragraph condemning King George for "forcing" the slave trade on the colonies. (Later removed to keep the pro-slavery delegates in the fold.)
6 replies 1 retweet 29 likes -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @AdamSerwer and
That's one data point & an ambiguous one (since the paragraph wasn't included). The Blumrosens provide much other evidence that points in another direction. Again, it's contestable but not self-evidently absurd or false.
4 replies 3 retweets 87 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet @AdamSerwer and
I admit that I haven't read the Blumrosens' book (or even heard of it until now), but at least judging from this review, it sounds extremely speculative.https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-4022-0400-5 …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CathyYoung63 @HeerJeet and
That review makes it sound like they rely on reading between the lines and surmising what people *really* meant--which is an approach I don't trust for things that happened last week, let alone three hundred years ago.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
I honestly don't think that a Publisher's Weekly summary of an academic book is the best way to settle this.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.