Bill O'Reilly says slaves were well fed

who helped build the WH. They also had decent lodgings.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/oreilly-white-house-slaves-well-000000723.html

Well by George, it doesn't seem as bad as some make it out to be.

Those slaves were well taken care of.

 

Can you prove him wrong, that they weren't well fed and housed?

 

The left clearly has no ammunition. Their garbage threads are becoming increasingly pathetic.

 

The subject appears to be food and housing. OReilly made his assertion that it was decent, what crime did he commit?

 

I suppose being well-fed and having decent lodging is supposed to make people feel better, right?

I guess if I take a kid to McDonald's once a week then that totally negates child abuse, right?

 

"Please, once again, I do not condone slavery. No matter what slaves were given, the institution itself was wrong."

 

You left out the freed slaves and indentured servants that helped build it...

 

Absolutely. I can beat my wife all I want just as long as I get her that new shiny bracelet!

 

These slaves who built the White House just weren't well fed but also were paid one pint of whisky every day they worked in construction building the White House.

When word reached across the pond that you were paid one pint of whisky working in construction in America resulted in the great flood of Irish immigrants to America.

 

It would be better if the child was also starved?

 

Why don't you just let it go.

Move on into the 21st century.

 

Everything Bill O'Reilly said appears to be absolutely true. So what's the problem? In the end, he confirmed that what Michelle Obama said in her speech was historically accurate.

 

There was a substantial effort to train everybody who worked on building the White house, which included some slaves.

It stands to reason that the construction authorities wouldn't invest time/money in training somebody just to let them expire after a few weeks of hard labor.

Throughout human history the more "valuable" a slave/servant has been the better taken care of it was.

Plus at that time slavery was already widely opposed with the abolitionist movement.

And at that time Virginia Republicans were already battling for legal rights for slaves.

Virginia being where the construction authority and nearly all the labor was based in and also the original owner of half the land now known as Washington, DC.

So you have people who were infested in the professional capacity of the workers, who opposed slavery, and who deeply believed in the rights of men.

Its not out of the realm of possibility to suggest that slaves there just might of had it better off than in some other places.

But I think everybody understands why leftists are pissed off.

You guys think you own everything that has to do with Blacks.

You think you own Blacks.

You don't.

And you don't own history either, regardless of how much you try to rewrite it.

 

Conservatives must really believe freedom is worthless if it doesn't matter if a person was deprived of their so long as they were well fed/sheltered.

 

Who said it did not matter?

 

I think the qualifier they use is "melanin dermal skin count" or "continent of origin"....."some" folks they hate slavery, even consider taxes to be "slavery"....."some" folks they don't mind it so much.

 

If it is not your way of condoning slavery then what is it why post something like rather. If soneone committed murder and O,Reiley comented that the killer performed the killing with such politeness that he deserves an award I would say that us the same as condoning murder.

 

He is reporting the truth from the historical record. He acknowledges that they are slaves and certainly that is not condoning slavery. Additionally free blacks, whites, and immigrants (there were no such thing as illegal immigrants at that time) also worked on the White House. This confirms Michelle Obama's comments about slaves building the house that she now lives in as an example of the progress made on race in the US.

http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=latestTVShow#10

 

Why did Michele even bring it up? What was the point? LOTS of people worked designing and building the White House including some slaves, it was not built exclusively by slaves. And it is not some huge new discovery that slaves were part of the labor that built the White House and LOTS of other buildings in DC and throughout the South.

And why did she have to keep noting her BLACK daughters, can you imagine if Trump kept noting his kids are white.

 

What's the point behind the apologetics then?

 

I am sure most of us would like to follow that as soon as O,Reilly and you move into the 21 st century

 

Either they are intentionally being obtuse or actually believe in the institution known as slavery.

 

"Well we may be slaves, forced into hard labor and building for white people but at least we get whiskey once in a while. YAAAYYYYY!!"
--No person ever.

 

That America has progressed from the point where the White House was built by black slaves....

to where two young black women grew up in it in freedom.


Naturally, the Right is "upset" about that kind of idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe, but they don't expect to get slavery back.......some of them hope to get "Jim Crow" back, though.

 

No and I don't care because it seems like you only did when Michelle brought hers up.