Posted on 08/04/2023 4:38:50 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
The question is flawed. These people who so steeped in -and- wedded to the idea that the U.S. is inherently racist that they would go so far as to tear down statues of Frederick Douglass, and vandalize other statues including known abolitionists cannot be reasoned with. They are poisoned beyond reproach. There is not one syllable of this audio book which is for them. That is not why I worked to create this audio book. That is a waste of time in total, be it words in a book, spoken word, paintings, picture, movies, video games, nor any other medium.
It's for the rest who are still reasonable. And in particular, it's for conservatives.
There are a great number of Americans around who do not want to believe their country is inherently racist. That is who this work is for.
The challenge is this:
Despite not wanting to believe the country is racist, the rest who are not poisoned have no idea where to look for the facts that will inform them that their gut instinct is correct - the country is not racist.
THAT is the target audience. Not permanently poisoned bigots, and yes, they are bigoted. It would be absolutely a waste of time to take this audio book over to DU.
Now, the real question is: Why do these people who do not want to believe that the U.S. is inherently racist not know where to look? The obvious answer: The propagandizing schools don't teach it or anything like it. That's a gimme, we all know that answer, we all know the schools are cramming in CRT as fast as they can. The schools leave every young citizen unprepared on purpose, so that we cannot have a way to find out. Or a way to teach others.
We need tools to teach these people. That's what the audio book is for. It's a tool, to make up for the time we have lost.
No. That's an incorrect way to say it. It's a tool to make up for the time that the progressives have stolen from us by making it impossible to get around their obstacles.
Don't waste your time on some leftist. What I would say is, go talk with your next door neighbor or talk with your friend in church.
And that's why the audio is free in the public domain. No cost $$.
Does the book have a benign explanation for the clause in Article IV, Section 2 (of the original Constitution) that begins: “No person held to Service for Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation herein, be discharged from such Service or Labour . . .”
If so, it will go a long way in doing what you seek to do.
They have been programmed. Some by Academia-liars and some by media-liars.
Unless you can get a hold of the programming tools, you cannot easily re-program them.
There are a great number of Americans around who do not want to believe their country is inherently racist.
This is an issue that I don't believe should receive a lot of thought or focus. On the list of things that are important in making the present better, this is a long ways from the top.
The entire racism issue is just a tool to get Congressional power because that's where the money is.
Looking at the civil war, and looking at the modern American spending policies, I finally realized it's always about money.
The liberal government sucking parasites are just using the "racism" tool because it works. It's been working since the civil war. Prior to that the North was just as racist as the South, but when they saw an advantage to pretending they weren't racist, they embraced it.
And it's been part of the tactics to gain power ever since.
That 10% which comprises the black vote in this nation is the difference between winning power and funneling money out to their allies and cronies, or being cut off from the streams of taxpayer/government money.
They aren't going to stop. It's how their bread is buttered.
The book isn’t constitution-focused, it’s founder-focused, and from the parts I have read the book spends more time with the convention than it does with the finalized constitution itself.
That clause is not really hard to deal with, of all people Frederick Douglass talks about it quite handily.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4026357/posts
Douglass: The American Constitution and the Slave: Is the Constitution pro-slavery or anti-slavery?
Douglass’s answer is that the Constitution is anti-slavery. Including A-IV S2.
I just helped build one. Scroll up to the top for more details. How much you want to guess that at best, 30 people read this book last year. I'll come back to this discussion in a month, let's see what the download numbers look like.
"The liberal government sucking parasites are just using the "racism" tool because it works"
We said the same thing, but different words. : From before :
"we all know the schools are cramming in CRT as fast as they can. The schools leave every young citizen unprepared on purpose, so that we cannot have a way to find out. Or a way to teach others."
The racism game wouldn't work among a well-educated populace, but an unprepared populace?- that will work very well. Do you know anybody who's building new tools that might possibly have even some sort or smidgen of an impact in that area?
Leave people suckers and they'll be suckers. That's what the schools are for, they're trying to de-educate us out of our own country. You can call it diseducation or maleducation if you prefer it's all the same. Since we don't have any tools, and they withhold all the tools, it's successfully working.
Consider;
All that statue pulling is what/ two? three? years old, right ?
NONE were put in storage (MAYBE a few) and the issue has died down, probably not to resurface for at LEAST two or three years, and by THAT time . . . .
The issue is destroy EVERY element about individual liberty and freedom America.
The good, the bad, the ugly AND the beautiful.
We're not as white as we were and EVERY invader is dark skinned with black hair.
The study of husbandry is a pretty good place to start thinking about America in ten short years.
I don't want to sound ungrateful, but we can deal with quotes here.
Somewhere I have a collection of Founders' quotes to refer to when an occasion calls for them.
Naturally, I'm interested to learn if there are others I didn't know that could prove helpful in various discussions.
So, if you have a point to make and want to post quotes supporting you point, we'll take a look at them and see what we think of them, beginning with: are they genuine and do they fit with what else we know about that particular founder?
Yes, I am definitely guilty of that one. That happens when you have your head stuck in too many books. I do that though because most attempts to network with others are met with "I have other more important things to do" - be it work or the next NFL season. So I'm stuck with books, I have nothing else to work with. Back to intellectualism, I suppose.
I don't get it, what's the appeal of such mass apathy and disengagement. But I know my refusal to sit around and wait for the next election is terribly strong. I will not wait. It's 729 days inbetween each election. I'm not waiting 729 days, that's a huge insult.
"the real issue and that is, ALL of American identity must be destroyed."
Essentially, yes. I agree. Progressives have been all about that since the 1920 election.
Education is destiny. Education overcomes all. It matters not what the programme is, it matters who controls the programme. I don't know why so many (and I do mean conservatives) keep refusing to get involved, but that is where we are at. At best, I know I could only really get people involved enough to put down their Bud Light.
The golden age of conservatism was the Tea Party; or, perhaps it's better if I said the height of conservatism was the Tea Party. We do have small pockets here or there of truly activist conservatives taking over school boards here or there, this county, that county - and when they do that, it's amazing. However one word I cannot use is "widespread". Pockets is sadly the correct word.
Let's review.
A contributor in post 10 used a Lincoln quote and was admonished: “sigh and back to the civil war we go . . . I'm trying to talk about the Founding Fathers and The 1619 Project/progressives, that's all.”
Frederick Douglas was born in 1818; he is not a Founding Father. His most famous work was as an abolitionist before and during the war Lincoln, it is said, “fought to free the slaves.”
To be clear: Is this thread still about Founding Fathers and The 1619 Project or have you expanded it to include Lincoln-era figures?
Sure, that's reasonable. I know that not everybody wants nor cares for audio books, and this one in particular which while I think the quality of all the readers is very good, it's not one solo reader throughout. Still. 90% of something is clearly better than 100% of nothing, and I'm not aware of very many books like this one that exist just to serve this very topic.
Some of the quotes you've already seen in days gone by by J. Adams, G.W. Jefferson, and others in regard to the ills of slavery. That's nothing new, people use them. Here is John Jay, author (1/3) of the Federalist:
In 1785, Mr. Jay wrote : — "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused." — Idem, vol. i. p. 231.
Of course, Governor John Jay happily signed New York's emancipation bill a decade later. Here is Dr. Franklin:
In a letter to Dean Woodward, dated London, April 10th, 1773, Dr. Franklin says, — ..." I have since had the satisfaction to learn that a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America; that many of the Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty; and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the king for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that Colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted, as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed, and as the interest of a few merchants here has more weight with Government than that of thousands at a distance." — Sparks's Franklin, vol. viii. p. 42.
I quote Franklin in part because Franklin's words on abolitionism, as well as his deeds, seem to never get mentioned or at least I've never seen them. These quotes are not go-to which is strange to me in light of NYT 1619. They ought to be first in line. IMHO there are also times where I get a sense that there is an aggressive mission on the part of some to act like abolitionism never existed - until the 1840's/civil war era - and that Americans copied British abolitionism, which makes it an alien concept unrelated to the founding. Some people seem to need this to be true and I do not know why.
I think the more interesting one from this book is the mention of Art. 4 of the original Articles of Confederation. After quoting the article itself, Livermore notes:
It was not by accident or oversight that negroes were included in the phrase "free inhabitants"; for, when this article was under consideration, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend, by inserting between the words "free" and "inhabitants" the word "white." The proposed amendment was lost; only two States voting in the affirmative.
What Livermore did (or at least indicates that he did) was go digging through debate notes and historical vote counts to highlight what Art. 4 actually means or at least, how far it goes toward inclusion.
My point here is that I do not believe I have ever seen anybody anywhere ever quote the Articles of Confederation in discussion and I think that in the context of NYT 1619, why shouldn't we quote from the Articles? It does show that even then the Founders did have equality in mind, it just wasn't all 13 colonial members who agreed on it.
Our country did not fail on race, not during the founding. That was forced on us prior to independence and gained new life thanks to Eli Whitney.
Where did I go to the civil war? I did not, I went directly to Article IV, Section 2 as suggested.
"To be clear: Is this thread still about Founding Fathers and The 1619 Project or have you expanded it to include Lincoln-era figures?"
George Livermore(the author of the newly-released audiobook) is a Lincoln-era figure. It was published in 1862, Livermore passed in 1865. And the 1619 Project is considered a part of the wider issue of CRT, which (CRT) constantly lies about Douglass when Douglass was a crusader who constantly defended both the Founders/Founding and the Constitution.
Why, then, the admonishment when Lincoln himself was quoted?
The leading Founders were learned and thoughtful men, and they lived at a time when the word liberty was on everyone's lips. They thought slavery would go away on its own. Once they Revolution was over and things calmed down, it was hard to overcome objections and work out the details. The book, though, shows the objections as well as the hopes for emancipation.
Thank you.
[ProgressingAmerica #1] An historical research respecting the opinions of the founders of the republic on negroes as slaves, as citizens, and as soldiers. Read before the Massachusetts histor[i]cal soceity, August 14, 1862.
It was first produced in pamphlet form and excerpts from the pamphlet were read before the Massachusetts Historical Society. It was later expanded to book length based on the author's existing research material.
[ProgressingAmerica #21] Despite not wanting to believe the country is racist, the rest who are not poisoned have no idea where to look for the facts that will inform them that their gut instinct is correct - the country is not racist.
How do selective quotes from centuries ago speak to the state of racism today?
At the Framing, all 13 states undeniably embraced the lawfulness of slavery in the United States. "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." That provision, known as the Fugitive Slave Clause, was ratified by all thirteen original states, and remained the law of the land for over seventy years.
Perhaps it is worth noting that pages 3-18 of the book focus on the views of Jefferson Davis, Alexander H. Stephens, Chief Justice Taney, Justice McLean, Justice Curtis, Judge Gaston, George Bancroft, and Edward Everett, establishing a relation to the Civil War. Considering that cast of characters, it is interesting that it omits Abraham Lincoln.
The publication should be placed in historical perspective, coming on the cusp of changing the reason for the war from saving the Union to freeing the slaves. Also, a copy of Livermore's work was prominently presented to President Lincoln by Charles Sumner and may have influenced Lincoln's decision to issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Livermore
In August 1862 Livermore wrote a historical research pamphlet on the opinions of the Founding Fathers of the United States of Negroes as slaves and as free citizens. Charles Sumner, the Republican senator from Massachusetts, presented Abraham Lincoln with a copy of Livermore's pamphlet in November 1862. The research work is thought by some historians to have influenced Lincoln's decision made between the issuance of the preliminary emancipation proclamation on September 22, 1862, and the finalized law decree of the proclamation on January 1, 1863, to include endorsing the use of former slaves as soldiers in the Union Army. Livermore's research goes into detail as to attitudes of the country's Founding Fathers as to slavery showing that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and the colonial principal leaders opposing the concept.
While one may readily find accurate quotes to show Washington and Jefferson speaking against the concept of slavery in the abstract; in real life both were slave owners until they died. Neither freed his slaves. Jefferson did free the family of Sally Hemings. While not mentioned by name, Madison was similar.
With the adoption of the Constitution, governance of the District was given exclusively to Congress. From the time the District was created, until the middle of the Civil War, slave trade continued in the District at the pleasure of the Federal Congress.
In the Introduction it is observed that, "In respect to the general subject of slavery, I apprehend he will find very little favorable to the institution among the relics of the great men of that period. Disgust at it was so general, as to be little less than universal. Among slaveholders, the language and hope of putting an end to the evil as soon as possible was on all their tongues; but, alas! it was far from being in all their hearts."
Yea verily, one must be careful to separate what was on their tongues from what was demonstrated by their acts.
When slavery departed in several Northern states, lengthy terms of indentured servitude arose, including up to 99-years. Black Laws were enacted to encourage any manumitted slave to self-deport to somewhere else, and to discourage any freed slave of another state from coming. When a Black invasion was feared in response to abolition, President Lincoln stated, "And in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?" (CW 5:536; 1 Dec 1862). The concept that the Union states could decide whether or not to receive free Blacks seems racist.
All accurate quotations are welcome but there are some legal concerns. Citizenship and natural born citizen have reappeared as glaring subjects of legal nonsense. The legal precedent of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause strikes down any and every conflicting law or claim inconsisent with it. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The Congress is powerless to add or delete any qualification thereto.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 by Senator Lyman Trumbull, and the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause by Senator Jacob Howard, and the relevant Congressional debate explicitly indicate the authors' intent to include people of all colors. Included are all persons born within the territory of the United States who did not enjoy immunity from the laws of the United States at the time of their birth, irrespective of the citizenship status of the parents.
Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone. Selected pull quotes from two centuries ago are not an indicator of whether America is a racist nation today, or based on White supremacy today. Slavery was eliminated, indentured servitude was eliminated, black laws were eliminated, and someone was doing the eliminating. Denying racism existed at the Founding is to deny the blatantly obvious. But that is not to say the place has not changed in two and a half centuries.
At the framing? Embraced? No. Deniably. This language is terrible and misleading. Slavery was a huge issue at the convention and it was only in regard to union/compromise that slavery was accepted. Some Founders openly discussed in the closed Convention having a foreign power court one or more of the states/colonies should certain needs not be met.
At the Founding is a different and much more telling question. By the time of the framing, after slavery had been had around a decade to set in, more states/colonies became embracing colonies whereas in the beginning there were only two. Georgia and South Carolina.
The real question is why had slavery been allowed to set in in the first place. The answer to that is that prior to Independence, forces within the empire up to and including the King himself prevented any law whatever from going into effect that would hamper either the slave trade or slavery itself. If it were left up to the colonies themselves without foreign intervention, at least 4 of the colonies would've at a minimum abolished the slave trade, and probably two would've abolished the whole thing in total by the time the calendar reaches Independence Day.
But the empire couldn't help it's meddling. The big slave empire. They didn't start embracing abolitionism until after Franklin was dead.
When I say that slavery was forced on the U.S., I mean it.
"How do selective quotes from centuries ago speak to the state of racism today?"
That depends on whether or not you fully trust and sincerely respect the headlines published by the New York Times. How about that Ibram X. Kendi, good guy, right? Let us know all about it. I don't know about anybody else but I really want to hear about your friend Kendi. The more paragraphs you can provide the better.
But if you are putting all of your trust and your hopes in the Times or any other outlet of progressive thought, well, that brings up a brand new ball of wax to discuss now doesn't it?
As I recall, the main point I was making was that the notion that the U.S. was founded as racist was false, I even pointed to Al Sharpton while stating that fact.(among others)
"Perhaps it is worth noting that pages 3-18 of the book..."
A tragic consequence as to the time frame of whence the book was published. I'd prefer to say less in this instance, because of that time frame.
"While one may readily find accurate quotes to show Washington and Jefferson speaking against....."
And John Jay? And Benjamin Franklin? Am I allowed Article 4 of the original Articles of Confederation? And do we have to only limit ourselves to the abolitionist founders quoted in this book? Why not a Stephen Hopkins or an Benjamin Rush, or even a James Otis Jr.?
The book also points out things said in the state ratifying conventions.
"Yea verily, one must be careful to separate what was on their tongues from what was demonstrated by their acts."
Acts build. So, no. Go ahead and try to cash that check, there isn't much in it. At the founding they were tasked with the terrible hardship of keeping together states which had abolished slavery with those who hadn't, lest they court some foreign power. This is a point Lincoln makes, the building of acts on top others, when citing the acts moving away from slavery - not toward it - as the decades went on. (Peoria speech; also Cooper Union) But I don't have to go just to some Lincoln quote, let's just count the numbers of the Founders and Framers themselves. Coming out of the slave empire, nearly 90% of the Founders owned slaves. By the time we get to the framing less than 50% owned slaves.(Or perhaps just over 50, I forget which) Go ahead, count them. You'll see. The direction they were moving couldn't be more clear.
The entire north as it came to exist by the time of CW wouldn't have been what it was - without Thomas Jefferson. That whole Northwest Ordinance and the banning of slavery. Ohio as a free state. That's Thomas Jefferson. Indiana as a free state. Jefferson. Illinois. Jefferson. Michigan. Jefferson. Wisconsin. Jefferson. Count'em. The finalized 1787 version largely carried his wording.
"Quoting lifelong slave owners as being morally opposed to slavery should not be a persuasive argument to anyone."
In the previous paragraph I just listed 5 reasons why its persuasive. Besides, people change their minds, and they deserve credit for when they do. Many of the most hardcore abolitionist came from the prior slave-owning ranks, and that's true both on the American and the British side. Now, it is well known that the laws of Virginia were tailored to prevent manumission - going back to the Empire(1723, I believe) - a snare that Jefferson got caught in. It's funny how Britain always ends up in the middle when dealing with slavery. But besides, you said "demonstrated by their acts", yea, ok. Let's move and look at those.
It is known that Jefferson's first act as a young legislator (or at least let's say one of his first) in the VA House of Burgesses was to get rid of slavery. He of course rips the King a new one in the Declaration Draught for pimping his negative(kingly veto) to protect slavery when the then-subject-colony of Virginia moved against it - a vote he would've voted for. There's the whole Northwest Ordinance thing previously accounted for above, and finally culminating in the 1808 ban on the trade when he was President.
Just focusing on acts, publicly and verifiable. Can you point to any time Jefferson advanced legislation, got all involved in and worked up about, or otherwise, and was a supporter of the institution of slavery?
Just acts. That was your qualification. Publicly and verifiable. Let's see them. He was involved with important acts for decades, you have plenty to reference.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1866 by Senator Lyman Trumbull, and the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause by Senator Jacob Howard, and the relevant Congressional debate explicitly indicate the authors' intent to include people of all colors."
And Article 4 of the Confederation.(1777-1789) Don't act like it's new.
They were wrong. I think it's important to admit that succinctly. There's a huge gulf inbetween a miscalculation based on reason and hope on one side and a cold, calculated racist agenda on the other.
Admitting that they were wrong brings it full circle in a meaningful way. It's also important to bring up the early American abolitionists, crossing over or not with some of the Founders; because they too thought it would go away - not on its own, but that slavery would go away if the trade were abolished. You see this in the early pamphlets. You can see it in Benezet's influential "Account of Guinea", for example, all about the slave-trade. There were plenty of full-fledged abolitionists to be sure, but they knew they had to get focused if they wanted to achieve success. British abolitionists a few decades later faced the same problem. You can't get all of slavery, let's just get the trade.
They believed that a lake cannot stay wet if its feeding river is eliminated. They too were wrong, those original abolitionists. That's why there's a two to three decade lull and full abolitionism returns to the scene. They did successfully get rid of the river, and waited around to see the lake dry up.
To their horror, it didn't dry up. It's terrible, but that's how the events actually happened.
"Once they Revolution was over and things calmed down, it was hard to overcome objections and work out the details."
Agreed. Its easy to rally people (who are already fired up in the first place) against slavery when it's that evil empire's slavery, brought here by some foreign entity. Maintained by a tyrant's legislative veto pen.
The Founders were not evil socialists bent on re-structuring society at all turns, using government coercion and punishment against their enemies to achieve their purpose. The king vetoed anti-slavery, so that's the situation the Founders found themselves in and had to work within it.
Without throwing thousands into gulags for wrong-think.
There sure are; because the word “racist” has been weaponized.
We must all now say in unison, even with internet anonymity, that we “denounce racism in the strongest possible terms.”
It hasn't always been that way. As recently as 1977(?) after calling President Ford a racist, civil rights leader Andrew Young said he didn't mean Ford wasn't a good person. When questioned in Congress Young even admitted that he (Young himself) was racist, but that no, that did not disqualify him from becoming United Nations ambassador.
The label racist has become a deadly and valuable poison; it will probably soon be administered for the purpose of destroying the Washington Monument.
Most, if not all, Americans sincerely prefer that Africans were not brought to this country as slaves.
We prefer that Joseph was not sold into slavery by his brothers.
We prefer than Adam had not sinned in the Garden.
But our preferences do not change historical reality. And the reality is that 13 of the original states were slave states. And of those 13, 13 of them voted to enshrine slavery into the United States Constitution.
That does not mean the good northern states loved slavery; they didn't. The only reason they voted slavery into the Constitution was because it was considered to be in their own economic and political best self-interest.
I do not fault you for wanting to run away from the liberal charge that America is disqualified because of a history of “racism.” But blame shifting to the British empire doesn't seem like a winning strategy considering what was being done with slaves in the colonies, later states, before the Revolutionary War, during the war, and after the war.
And even if you successfully flee the racism charge, the liberal cavalry is going to be hot on your trail with slashing attacks that you are paternalistic, nationalistic, monotheistic, monogamistic, and a homophobic running-dog capitalist.
Do you have a plan to deny all that bad stuff too?
Orwell wrote about The Endless Present, you appear to be stuck there. Others can waste their time with such idiotic denunciations, not me. Just as there is no spoon, there is nothing to apologize for. That's party mythology, far too many people gawk at it.
My goal is to highlight how badly the schools teach, on purpose, to leave us all sitting ducks for this racialized agenda. There could be an education with this high a quality as with shown in this book and others with this many footnotes, but the schools choose not to do it. Homeschoolers will find a lot of use for this material. The government schools however choose a different path on purpose, it is no doubt by design. The schools are simply lying because it serves a political end and modern historians are in on the scheme. Other useful works along this same line are these:
The Colored Patriots of the American Revolution
The founders were correct. Why wouldn't I leverage it to the utmost? Why don't you want to leverage it? Perhaps everybody around you is poisoned and you have nobody you can talk to - many of us do live in such areas where even the churches are corrupted with wokeness.
"It hasn't always been that way."
Yeah, I know, walked to school up-hill both ways. I've heard it all.
You need to recognize that we are here because the progressives have put us here over the last 120 years. There's only one way to get out of this situation and it isn't to whine about how it was in days gone by. Time to walk up yet another hill, yes, it will be walking up-hill both ways again.
"But our preferences do not change historical reality."
You do not appear to know what that reality actually is beyond useless generalities. It's not a surprise you find it hard to defend it the defendable. Our Founders are eminently defendable on the issue of slavery, there's no reason to lose this argument having the proper training that the schools did not provide. The founders were certainly not a product of their times - not all of them. They were ahead of their time, the evidence could not be more clear. To put this another way, your preference to go out of your way to NOT defend our Founders is becoming very obvious.
What else do you need to defend our Founders? You let me know, I'll provide it.
Pining for the "good ol' days" is the lazy way out, maybe a little fun. It's 100% useless though. How much time do you have left to simply waste?
An excerpt from thesaurus.com explains it well:
An Historic vs A Historic
Traditionally, the word an is used as an article before vowel sounds and the word a is used as an article before consonant sounds. For example, we would say an apple and a banana. However, we would also say an hour and a university. The word hour has a silent H and begins with a vowel sound, so we use the word an. The word university begins with a consonant “yoo” sound and so we use the word a.
It’s perfectly acceptable and natural sounding to use a before the word historic as in This is a historic event. The word historic doesn’t have a silent H and begins with a consonant sound like the word hip, so it makes sense to use the word a. Additionally, most style guides recommend using a before historic, history, and historical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.