Founding Fathers were extremistsBy Brianna Acuesta The document was made available, along with 133 other documents from the Air Force, to legal watchdog Judicial Watch after they made a request through the Freedom of Information Act. Released in January 2013, the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute student guide is titled Extremism and says it is for training purposes only. But how are they supposed to separate what they learn about extremism as a student and not to apply it when they are in combat? The manual goes on to define an extremist as a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights. By this definition, not only are the Founding Fathers likely extremists, but American citizens are too. Though many citizens, politicians, and presidential candidates state that their reasoning for discrimination is for national security, the reality is that these same people are actually engaging in extremism by demanding that people fleeing from war in other countries, especially those who are Muslim, not be allowed into the United States. But Americans cant be extremists or terrorists, right? Furthermore, the manual also explicitly cites the Founding Fathers as extremists when it states, In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples. This example is troubling, because the colonists had sought to free themselves from oppression while the Confederate states sought to do the samein order to legally continue to severely oppress slaves. The umbrella of this example and these descriptions are much too vague and reveal what some Americans really are: confused hypocrites. The Department of Defense is using these terms to define extremists who are dangerous for the nation, yet its showing that Americans themselves are engaging in the same extremist behavior, whether they are using hateful language to condemn refugees or actually trying to make the world a better place. Its clear from the broad spectrum of descriptions used to identify extremists that the Department of Defense simply does not know how to describe those who are actually a threat to national security. Though this may seem harmless in theory, one can only hope that when the time comes for those who absorbed these teachings to put it into practice that they know how to identify the real threats and those who are just victims of the oppression. This article (Founding Fathers Would Be Called Extremists Today, According To Department of Defense) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and Trueselfnews.com. Then in thier day the DOD would have been called Traitors The manual goes on to define an extremist as a person who advocates the use of force or violence; advocates supremacist causes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or national origin; or otherwise engages to illegally deprive individuals or groups of their civil rights. By this definition, not only are the Founding Fathers likely extremists, but American citizens are too. Yes, depriving people of their rights is evil. 95% of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, so they were extremists. The right of revolution, espoused in the Declaration of Independence, is based on innate equality and the violation of the consent of the governed. Yet, most of those who signed the Declaration, denied the equality of their slaves and THEIR right to consent. Different standards for different times? No, most of the slave owners embraced all men are created equal and even denounced slavery as an evil, but refused to give up their slave property, since their fortunes were based on slave labor. Until we come to terms with our schizophrenic history, we will never be able to create a society based on equality and consent of the governed. People who deprive others of their rights are evil. There are ways to create change without violence or depriving others of their rights. Gandhi and Dr. King taught these methods and ended centuries of oppression where violence had failed. There were blacks who fought alongside General George Washington during the revolutionary war. But we were never taught those facts in any classroom in America. If not why not? Does somebody want to oppress the truth about such things? I think they do have an agenda to continually stir the pot of hatred and racial divide. Pastor David Barton is a good source for the missing facts about the founders and early American history. He clearly dispels a lot of the lies perpetrated by those who would profit from unrest among the races. Washington, of course, had 300 slaves himself (over 90% of Founding Fathers owned slaves: Jefferson (all men are created equal) owned 200, of whom he freed 9 in his will. About 9000 blacks fought for Washington in order to gain their freedom. Some also fought for the British for the same reason. Here is the British incentive for slaves to join their forces: Lord Dunmores Proclamation As the Revolutionary War spread through every region, those in bondage sided with whichever army promised them personal liberty. The British actively recruited slaves belonging to Patriot masters and, consequently, more blacks fought for the Crown. How does protesting racial injustice divide the races? What divides the races is racism, individual and institutional. Dr. King was demonized for causing unrest. Protesting injustice SHOULD cause unrest. Fighting for your rights is meant to be disruptive of a system of injustice. From Wiki article on right wing author David Barton (with primary sources): The true extremist is obamas Department Of So-Called Defense! Correct, except that is DoD does not belong to Obomba, both the president and Department of Offense are owned by and answer to Wall Street. an extremist is described as someone who will talk of individual liberties, states rights, and how to make the world a better place. In the days of the founding fathers blacks were considered livestock (a sub-species of the human race) so all men being created equal had no bearing on how they felt about slaves. Was it wrong of course a simple DNA test would have proved it, but science rarely coincides with lawmaking and our forefathers had only the science of that day. That is why, though the basic principles of our founding fathers is a sound foundation, as we progressed and learned more, new laws were embraced. Now give our founders credit they knew laws would have to change to keep up with the changing times of the future. Comparing our founding fathers with the government of today is ludicrous. The basic principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness mean nothing anymore to those who have been corrupted by power. Our founding fathers had to fight and die for the freedoms that were handed down on a silver platter from generation to generation, and that only because of our great military and leaders of their day that protected this great, free nation. That would be like saying a physician practicing in the 1700s was a murderer because the science of medicine wasnt up to the standards of todays medicine. You have to look at the time we are in it is impossible to compare the different time periods. While I find agreement with you on several points, I cant agree with you on the first one you made, that slaves were considered as livestock. Slaves typically cost $1000-$1200 or more, in that era and surely would have been valued far in excess of livestock. The income they were able to generate by their labor was roughly 10% profit to the landowner and the other 90% went to their maintenance and upkeep. A lot of points concerning those issues go unrecognized today. I stand corrected in using the term livestock. Please replace livestock with property. Thank you for your constructive criticism. .. Peace, Patty Anyone not toeing the liberal line is an extremist today. Always be a light that is shininginthedark. It is not a liberal vs conservative thing. Both sides are on board. WAKE UP! Not true. Republicans have fought Obama since its swearing in, plus they fought against the poor in health care , womens rights (and to choose legal abortion ) , infrastructure spending, education and a whole host of important issues. Might ought to tell Obama. Sounds like him and his buddies Hate rears its ugly republinut heads right ? Hate of the poor. GET over it, you all have lost. What a bunch of garbage. Combined with a little bit of truth (the manual) its nothing but a bunch of revisionist propaganda. Why dont you educate yourself as to WHY they were forced out of EU!! The EU didnt even exist during the founding of this nation. Nor did it exist during the civil war. What the H-ll are you talking about? And you have the audacity to claim I need to educate myself???? Rrrrich!!! The DOD and their minions are IDIOTs. Why waste energy and resources on such an effort if it wasnt political. Sounds like an agenda to discredit the Founding Fathers (not PC) by the elite liberals that hate anything to do with the Constitution and the American Revolution for Independence. I would wager that Obummer and his liberal minions are mixed up in this. This is the same administration that put out the Zombie Apocalypse Survival Guide. Over 90% of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. All but 3 Presidents until Lincoln were slave owners. This is not propaanda but the historical truth. The people who wrote the Constitution were a far different group than those who wrote the Declaration. That is also a historical fact. Historical truth knows no party or ideology. It is what it is, whether you like it or not. For instance, Jefferson who wrote all men are created equal owned 200 slaves, had six children by his slave concunbine, and they were treated as slaves. He freed 9 slaves in his will. After denouncing slavery in his youth, he grew silent in later life and even urged others to promote slave births so the children could be sold (at an early age) as a wise investment. He wrote to a friend that selling slave children was more profitable than slave labor, a form of compound interest. The contradictions in the Founding Fathers have played out as racial conflict for the past 200 plus years. You cannot understand US history and experience without understanding the contradictory beliefs of the Founding Fathers or understanding that those who fought the Revolution and ratified the Declaration were a far different group, with different beliefs, than those who wrote the Constitution. A good source book on this subject is the New Nation by Merrill Jensen, which describes the era in question with all its contradictions and paradoxes. Ms. Auesta, your assertion the Confederate states sought to do the samein order to legally continue to severely oppress slaves. is inaccurate. The 1860 Census tells us that of the 8 million people who lived in the slave owning states of the South only 385,000 owned slaves. Statistically, thats 4.8% of all Southern whites owned slaves. First question: Why would slavery be the main reason for seceding from the union and willingly fighting the North when less than 5% of the population had a dog in the fight? Noted Lincoln scholor Doris Kearns-Goodwin, wrote in her book, Team of Rivals, of how Lincoln was actually the source and promoter of the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. In early 1862, Lincoln and the Republican Congress offered to amend the Constitution the Corwin Amendment to forever allow slavery in the South if only the South would return to the Union. The South refused. Second question: If slavery were the reason the South left, why would they not return if the North were to enshrine forever in the Constitution the right for slavery? The charters of secession explain that protecting slavery is the reason. Look it up. In many Southern states, a large percentage of families owned slaves: Slaves as a percent of population were over 44% (up to 55%) in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, MIssissippi, and South Carolina. etc. (http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html) The South, by their own account in their state secession charters, fought to protect the institution of slavery. This was economic self-protection for Southern whites, the same reason why Jefferson, Washington, and over 90% of the Founding Fathers owned slaves and for the most part did not free them even in their wills. Slaves were seen as property, and people will fight to protect their property. Dale Ruff, The fact that only 385,000 Southern whites out of a population of approx. 8 million owned slaves is indisputable. That is the official U.S. Census report in 1860. Regarding slavery, yes, those who owned slaves wanted to keep them because they had spent considerable money to buy them, but if keeping the slaves as slaves were the reason for leaving the union then when the South was offered the deal that the Northern States would agree to pass the Corwin Amendment which would guarantee Constitutional protection for the perpetuation of slavery in the South IF only the South would return to the Union, then WHY didnt the South return to the Union since they would have received the absolute right for slavery forever! It was not the driving issue. Besides, Lincoln had expressed his views on the black slaves in America many times. In his own words from, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, (CW) by Abraham Lincoln, let him explain immediately below the value he placed on the black slaves. (Source included) Free them [blacks] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals. (CW, Vol. II, p. 256). I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary. (CW, Vol. III, p. 16). I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . . (CW, Vol, III, pp. 145-146). The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deportation of all American blacks] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia. (CW, Vol. V, pp. 373, 374).I meant not to ask for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. (CW, Vol., II, p. 260). I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination I the people of the free states to enter into the slave states and interfere with the question of slavery at all. (CW, Vol. II, p. 492). I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. (CW, Vol. III, p. 16)..I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law. (CW, Vol., III., p. 40). [T]he people of the Southern states are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law. (CW, Vol. III, p. 41). Third question: As evidenced by his own words, Lincoln had a low opinion of the value of the slaves held in the South. Since he held blacks as such an inferior race and was so bigoted towards blacks, why would he be so willing to fight a war for their freedom? My source IS the 1860 census: As for why the southern states seceded, it can be found very clearly stated in the statess secession charters: to protect the institution of slavery. Georgias Declaration of Cause cites that . The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party..The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization..We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. This was their rationale for secession. The Mississippi Declaration gets straight to the point: In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. South Carolina justified its secession with this argument: We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. In short, the North has violated our property rights in slaves. The Texas Declaration argued thus: In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. Texas had rebelled against Mexico, which had outlawed slavery in 1835, in order to become a slave state, which it did after a short era of independence. By 1860, 1/3 the population was slaves. Virginia declared: The people of Virginia..having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States. The principle perversion was in not respecting the property rights of slave holders in their slaves. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ In their own words, I have presented why the slave states seceded and quoted the data from the 1860 census exactly as given at the source I linked above. Nothing Lincoln said refutes why the slave states seceded (they certainly saw him as anti-slavery) or the data as reported by the 1860 census, showing that most slave states had over 1/3 of families owning slaves. I am just reporting the facts. (Founding Fathers Would Be Called Extremists Today, According To Department Of Defense) Well Yea they revolted (started a war) against the sitting government. The British government got upset at its subjects revolting and took action, you can expect no less of the government. Today if you revolt and try to start a war against the US government you would be a fool if you think it would just sit there and do nothing. I happen to think the Founding Fathers were right in what they did. And I wish there was a way to throw off our present government and put in its place a just-government, but I dont see how it can be done Thats easy and obvious. There must be a standing army, otherwise known as civil disobedience, and they must agree on terms of justice for all via fixing the corrupt system we now have , and I mean everywhere, ending with a removal of capitalism, the problem to most of our woes. Its not rocket science, except to the few, the rich, the elite who want it to stay that way so they dont lose their toys of their favored, 1% status, which btw now is the highest its ever been in our countries history, kind of like global warming, only in their case its greed and corruption, not to mention lacking any degree of empathy for their fellow citizens. Just ask Romney, and his followers. Hi everyone my name ig Gary u need some help my situation is right out of a steven king novel i live in troy mo, i hade a house that i was closing on in idaho so my girl friend and my two daughters 2 and 4 went up there two weeks befor we closed on the house to retrieve our belongings she was killed in a car crash will in idaho whitch was the same toun as her family resides her sister somehow the same day got emergency temporary custody of my girls the following day i arived in idaho and the family had my arested for phone herasment and i have been fighting to get my girls back ever since ive spent everthing 62,000 to date this was 7 months ago please help my contact my here is my email address gf32312@gmail.com You people have your heads up, somewhere-, you and your extremist conspiracy nutbag tea party ideologically pure ideas, much like the supposed purists your fellow countrymen stood for, and which America has rejected soundly. Yes America has a ways to go but its not as bad as you attempt to paint it. All disrespect intended, your comment is nonsense. Of course it is. Ive heard better debate performance from high school, so excuse me , and the reader base, if we leave equally unimpressed. We? LOL! 