Those first two columns have a UX person screaming somewhere.
post
Ulysses Grant did quite a bit of work to end slavery
Its still simultaneously true that he and the first lady owned a lot of slaves. He may have only personally owned one, but his wife had inherited many of them. If you visit the Grant’s Farm historical site in Missouri they dont hide that fact, and Missouri was the one Union state that was not forced to end enslavement practices. She had grown up on the same property as a girl, and her family owned a bit over 30 people there IIRC. They probably owned nearly as many, while actively fighting to end enslavement
After having read many books about the American revolution and the beginning of the u.s, Thomas Jefferson is the most duplicitous, hypocritical, full of shit dirtbag that ever was.
Truth. Jefferson is the equivalent of a William F Buckley, who could write bullshit so it sounded smart but had no actual thought or intelligent ideas beyond dressing up Greed. Jefferson was a fucking coward and a shit bag.
Jefferson also virulently condemned the Haitian revolution, which was the first successful slave rebellion in the western hemisphere, and helped spread the abolition of slavery to the rest of the caribbean and south america.
Also for all the hamilton liberals, yes he owned slaves too, and that musical is whitewashing the US founding slaveowners.
I don't think Jefferson comes across that great in Hamilton. His defense of the South and slavery is made pretty clear.
People defend Jefferson for not releasing his slaves, saying anti slavery wasnt a thing to them. John Adam’s and his wife were anti slavey, and found it abhorrent. He liked to hire freed black men and didn’t allow slave servants in the White House. So clearly the idea that slavery was wrong was around and lots of people practiced it
Special mention for Bill Clinton who benefited from penal slavery in the governor's mansion while governor of Arkansas.
True...it could be 100% if we include the US's currently legal form of slavery: prison labour.
That's what I mean by penal slavery.
The reason I only included Clinton rather than every president who has benefitted from prison slave labor (which as you say is all of them), is that to my knowledge he's the only one who basically had house slaves provided to his home by the state prisons..
Well, yeah. Owning slaves was an affluent male thing to do, and most politicians are those kinda people even today. If it wasn't abolished, I'm quite certain this would be 3/4, if not much, much higher.
I mean, do you think Trump, Bush(es), Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy or Nixon wouldn't own slaves? I can only see Obama and Carter (despite a peanut farm), and I'll venture a guess that Obama probably didn't get elected president in that fucked up parallel universe since voting rights are probably pretty different even if he was allowed to run.
Whew not Sam Adams though! (nor Jr!)
edit - (and neither were presidents! Holy shit I'm developing a maga-level remembrance of history! 😁 )
It's ok, you just got him confused with John Adams, his cousin, who was the second president (and his son John Quincy Adams the 6th president.)
Was searching the post to see if someone else pointed out that neither Adams was on the list.
Thank you for the laugh this morning.
Everytime I see Sam Adams mentioned, I always think of Sam Jackson beer.

For a moment my brain had a sort circuit and thought why Armin Van Buuren was in a list of USA presidents who owned slaves.
1/4 of Presidents lived in a time and society where owning slaves was accepted.
Not nearly the same degree as slavery, but I see a lot of reaction stuff to comedy and movies from the 70s and 80s and younger people are shocked at some things that were typical back then. Doesn't mean anyone is wrong either way, times just change. Obviously slavery is wrong, but the period of time always needs to be considered when making judgements. Would have any of those Presidents made it into office, or even been not run out of town if they had been full on abolitionists? It's a lot like our current time where we can't seem to have candidates that push for extreme changes because they wouldn't get support, even if it would help most of the voters.
1/4 of Presidents lived in a time and society where owning slaves was accepted.
Abolitionism is as old as (edit: chattel) slavery itself. They owned those slaves and inflicted unspeakable horrors on them despite no shortage of people telling them that's wrong; it's not like "black people are people too" was such a foreign thought to them.
Wikipedia disagrees with it being that old. It's a product of the Enlightenment but even then took time to grow into a large movement.
That's not true, and it's especially not true for England, the primary wellspring of American culture.
The reality is a bit more complex but in one of the most hypocritical acts of history England actually had a bit of cultural myth that there were no slaves in England, and that the mere act of stepping onto English soil would free anyone that was a slave.
This was more or less legal fact, though they famously worked around with it things like indentured servants.
If you'd like to know more I'd start with
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
Which basically established that common law (traditional understandings of how society worked) outlawed slavery in England, and had basically outlawed it for as long as England has been a thing, and there was no other law to override that.
Some point to this as the start of abolition but the legal basis of the case is that it was already illegal.
One of the basises for the decision was Cartright's case. The details have been lost but this is a decent summary:
https://legalhistorymiscellany.com/2018/10/10/slavery-and-cartwrights-case-before-somerset/
So, in the 11th year of Elizabeth I's reign, a century before the Enlightenment, it was already legal tradition that there were no slaves in England and breathing the air proved you couldn't be a slave.
Obviously, the English abandoned those ideals in the pursuit of Empire, and there's a whole bunch of hypocrisy involved, but abolitionism didn't spring from the Enlightenment in England in particular, it was already there, even if they were typically human hypocrites about the whole thing.
I just pulled my statement based on reading wiki's entry on abolitionism which does mention what you point out. I don't think what I said was wrong as much as not specific enough, but my main point was that there was no major movement that a Presidential candidate could rally with and gain votes to win. It took a war for one to push such an act through, left a scar that never healed, and cost him his life.
Oh I should've said chattel slavery, but still abolitionism older than you imply. In any case, however, it was very much a thing by the time of the founding of the US and a few states had banned slavery even before the American war of independence. Even if we ignore the whole "not giving them their freedom despite the will of his father in law explicitly demanding it" part, someone like Washington could not have been ignorant of abolitionist thought except willingly.
Grant's story on that is pretty interesting actually.
https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/
all 26 comments