,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
"All you would have to do is name one solitary Republican who owned a slave and I would have to take it back."
Oh, OK:
Republican Benjamin Burton was actually the largest slaveowner in Delaware.
Take it back.
Oh, OK:
Republican Benjamin Burton was actually the largest slaveowner in Delaware.
Take it back.
Here's the obituary for Benjamin Burton: 
And here's reference to his status as a Republican and a slaveholder in 1861.
books.google.com/books?id=bVMdA…
books.google.com/books?id=bVMdA…
This is a good lesson why actual historians don't speak in these kinds of absolutes, because when you do something like that, you're liable to wind up looking like an utter moron.
There's no need to make a claim like this anyway.
Anyone who ever took US history, even in high school, knows that in the antebellum era, Democrats were the party of slavery while abolitionism drove the GOP.
It's kind of a recurring theme when we teach the Civil War, you know?
Anyone who ever took US history, even in high school, knows that in the antebellum era, Democrats were the party of slavery while abolitionism drove the GOP.
It's kind of a recurring theme when we teach the Civil War, you know?
The fact that D'Souza thinks this is some kind of massive secret he's uncovered, some sort of brave truth he's revealing that no actual historians will discuss, just lays bare how little he knows about the substance of American history or how it's taught.
But anyway, I'm sure he'll take it back now that he's seen proof that he's wrong.
As a P.S., you'll note that the conclusion he draws from his claim is wrong also.
He thinks if no Republicans had slaves, Democrats owned *every* slave -- ignoring the fact that there were other parties at the time.
Another fact he'd have known if he'd ever taken US history.
He thinks if no Republicans had slaves, Democrats owned *every* slave -- ignoring the fact that there were other parties at the time.
Another fact he'd have known if he'd ever taken US history.
