Its interesting that he was heavily criticized for certain extreme policies and yet sill swept the governors race

Its hard to defend the "Self Made Man" claim when all of his industries are built on the backs of other5 people who will never see the profit and he will never see their work

Should places be named after him because of what hes done?

I think its important to keep in mind all of his policies only benefited one group.

Its so disgusting that he was the leader of these mobs. Especially because his when remembering his life most only focus on on the "good" he did

There is something about this term that feels like it softens the realities of the system. I suppose Wikipedia wouldnt use "Chattel slavery" every time but it still feels weird.

The same plantation that had a long history of slavery.

It is interesting how his page starts and includes so many positive accomplishments. This seems to almost direct attention away from his negative actions and legacy.

This is so disgusting and its insane these ideas and practices continued unenforced but also not surprising at all for America.

So much of Southern wealth came from the labor of African Americans who never have been reimbursed.

So little of this history is erased by the United States and they replace this knowledge with enforcing the idea that slavery ended in 1865

It makes sense he would turn to convict leasing because of his history as a plantation owner and slave owner

Interesting connection to what we learned about in past weeks and how many early politicians were connected to the Masonics.

Every time people are doing the "right" thing its for selfish reasons. Even the emancipation proclamation was to try and get more soilders for the North. I think in the USA we create myths around history that isnt true.

Its ironic that Andrew Johnson was chosen to try and balance the union but ultimately helped tear it apart

It is interesting how quickly reconstruction fell apart but also how much support it had federally.

Its cool to see parallels in history. The start of the revolution and the Boston Massacre have a vague likeness to Fort Sumter and the Civil war. Things were already tense and then a situation got out of control and started a war

I think its interesting how diplomatic the revolution was. Instead of killing or fully fighting until monarchy was dead the colonists just wanted to stop being taxed and shows the idea that they still were/ and in many ways wanted to be British citizens

I think this is a really interesting statement which isnt talked about in alot of history classes Ive taken before. I feel like the narrative the USA promotes fully turns us into victims who were abused for years and finally took a stand.