It’s far worse than I thought. In addition to the many links between the family that owns The New York Times and the Civil War Confederacy, new evidence shows that members of the extended family were slaveholders.
Last Sunday, I recounted that Bertha Levy Ochs, the mother of Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs, supported the South and slavery. She was caught smuggling medicine to Confederates in a baby carriage and her brother Oscar joined the rebel army.
I have since learned that, according to a family history, Oscar Levy fought alongside two Mississippi cousins, meaning at least three members of Bertha’s family fought for secession.
Adolph Ochs’ own “Southern sympathies” were reflected in the content of the Chattanooga Times, the first newspaper he owned, and then The New York Times. The latter published an editorial in 1900 saying the Democratic Party, which Ochs supported, “may justly insist that the evils of negro suffrage were wantonly inflicted on them.”
Six years later, the Times published a glowing profile of Confederate President Jefferson Davis on the 100th anniversary of his birth, calling him “the great Southern leader.”
The Times must be canceled and destroyed
More at the NY Post
very true. the majority of the original board of directors owned slaves. Jefferson Davis owned a whole lot of slaves. in the arab world today, slave trade is very profitable and flourishing. so why has not the billegernt lying marxist and anti-f++kup not go to iran, northern africa or the sub saharan region, china or extend their cause into Russia to protest??? rioters and protestors deaths come very quickly in these areas of the world.
As I asked in another thread, So what?
How is that any more relevant over a century-and-a-half later than the fact that some of the Founding Fathers were slave owners, or that “The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, came into being in 1845 as the church of Southern slaveholders?”
Ulysses S Grant owned a slave until he decided to free him as a matter of conscience.
No one answered there, and I’ll be surprised if anyone does here.
@Greg: Confederate traitors as Democrats love to cite when going back over 100 years to tear down history. Seems the family are still trying to tear apart the country.
He owned more than one slave as three others came with his wife. He kept them as long as he lived in Missouri but when he moved from the farm to St. Louis, he hired them out.
Perhaps you can find the records where Grant freed those slaves prior to the Emancipation Proclamation.
Grant was as racist as they come. He hated Native Americans and supported the campaign to annihilate them, via the very racist Sheridan. But in your mind, that probably wouldn’t count because “a good Indian is a dead Indian.”
Then there is this stain on the NY slimes…
William Jones, a slave owned by Ulysses S. Grant, was freed by him in Missouri on March 29, 1859 by a signed letter of manumission. Grant and his family were struggling financially at the time. The document still exists in the records of the Missouri Historical Society. The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t come until the beginning of 1863. The document was recorded, as can be seen in the smaller facsimile on the page linked below.
Grant grew up in Ohio in a family of abolitionists. Grant’s other slaves came to him as property of his wife, Julia Dent. Grant had no strong views either way concerning universal emancipation as of 1862. He told his father as much in a letter, saying he went into the war with the intention of putting down a rebellion. Which he did.
Everybody knows there were divided views concerning slavery. The Civil War, remember? When it finally came to war, Grant was on the right side of the issue. So what’s your problem with him?
So it’s OK to cancel those who were on one side, but not the other?
Of course I remember. The North hangs on to it like it was a toy teddy bear and wants to cancel anyone who doesn’t accept blame for what people did 165 years ago when none of us were alive.
Make no mistake, Grant did not fight to free the slaves. He fought because he believe that the Union should be maintained. Grant was a racist. A product of his time. End of story.
He did not just defeat the South, he destroyed their homes, farms, businesses, everything that people needed to sustain life. Would you have agreed with that policy if we had exercised in Iraq or Afghanistan? No, I don’t think you would.
He also hated Native Americans (racism) and wanted them no only subdued but destroyed.
As usual, your sentence makes no sense. What are you trying to say?
A very accurate comment. The democrats left the union because they did not want to give up their slave labor. democrats and the democrat party have been enraged since they were forced to give up their slaves. But, they are still slave holders in that they through mechanisms of dependency on the government and the democrat party, they have created a plantation..
The “three-fifths compromise” incentivized the South to free its slaves, because doing so would bring more representation in Congress, in the Electoral College, and in the form of taxation. The Southern democrats should have wanted to free its slaves so as to obtain more political power, because slaves were only counted as three-fifths of a person–taking away the South’s power–rather than as a full person, which a free person would be. The more people the South has in census, the more political weight it has in Congress. Thus the three-fifths compromise was an attempt at reducing the South’s political power in Congress and aimed at reducing slavery–to give the South LESS POWER for having slavery, not more. It was the North that did not want to count slaves as people, and it was the South that wanted to count its slaves as people.
Blacks were already free to vote in the North by the time of the Constitution’s ratification, and it was the North that argued that the South’s slaves should not be counted–because they did not vote.
The North would profit in the South’s reduced political pull.
Nonsense. At Grant’s funeral Frederick Douglass said
BLM is demanding that people today pay for the sins of their ancestors and are being canceled. The Times must not escape that fate.
Well, “so what” is that this is exactly the tenuous association with racism and slavery that you leftists use on a daily basis to “cancel” some political opponent. It is also ironic that this is from the paper that was mounting a coordinated campaign to paint Trump as a racist. The “so what” is that this is exactly the kind of connection that should compel the NYT to pay reparations, since this is such a popular call among liberals.
Or, is time an immunity against association with racism and slavery, thus making the reparations argument totally moot? THAT’S “so what”. Or, did you think no one would figure this out?
@July 4th American:
Try explaining the anti-slavery strategy behind the 3/5ths Compromise. All they see is a black person counted as less than a full human being, not how it actually helped stem southern political strength. But, then again, these are the same people that want as many illegal immigrants as they can get so they can bloat their House of Representatives numbers.
Back to the point. If we cancel organizations and people for being tied to slavery, then we must cancel the NYTs.
But that won’t happen, so…
…we see that cancel culture is about gaining power not justice at all.
Same old Marxist story.
Well, that’s the point. Of course, it’s stupid, but it is the left’s rule. So, the NYT must be cancelled or, like #MeToo and #BelieveHer, the left must acknowledge that all that is just bullshit they like to hit the opposition over the head with when they can’t prove their policies have merit.
How so? The Fourteenth Amendment that conveyed citizenship was passed by Congress in 1865, before Grant was made President (ratified July 9, 1868, again, before Grant became President).
Grant was the consummate politician that put the screws to Native Americans when he approved the destruction of the bison herds in order to drive Native Americans to reservations. He also violated treaties when he allowed gold seekers into the Black Hills.
So defend Grant all you want. I stand by my original statement; Grant fought to unify the Union, not to feel slaves.