this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
310 points (87.6% liked)

Memes

54358 readers
390 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 35 points 4 days ago

Founding fondlers :kelly:

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Franklin would have, for sure, but I'm pretty sure the rest of them would have just kept raping their own slaves.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sartalon@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not all. Pretty sure John Adams would not have been.

Hamilton and Jefferson would probably have written most of them though, about each other.

[–] Afaithfulnihilist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't think they would have been called the Epstein files though. It probably would have been called the Franklin files. All of this stuff seems like Ben Franklin's jam.

No I don't think Ben Franklin would have done it for espionage or spying purposes I think he would have just done it for the love of the game.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stickly@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

I get that a lot of this linked article is written to (correctly) change the narrative around slavery erasure but some of it delves into baseless hyperbole that can't be anything but counter productive.

For example:

Evidence suggests that sexual abuse of slaves was so fundamental to chattel slavery that it’s reasonable to assume any histories of “kind” slave owners are complete fabrications designed to preserve the legacy of the masters.

That is either playing fast and loose with wording or an absolutely incredible claim requiring incredible proof.

On one hand, the "kind" slave owner is always a fabrication because the act of owning slaves is inherently immoral and reprehensible. This view makes the claim a borderline platitude; perpetuating an institution that enables rapists is very obviously unkind.

On the latter interpretation, you're claiming that rape was so universal that any slave owner was almost certainly a rapist (especially if they claimed they weren't). This would require some sweeping evidence, think studies on the demographics of mixed race slaves or on medical records tied to sexual assaults.

So what evidence follows? Excerpts from Frederick Douglas giving second hand accounts of rape and of Harriet Jacobs giving her first hand account. Nothing that incriminates slave owners broadly beyond Douglas's phrasing "...in [rape] cases not a few,...".

I don't even deny that the evidence might exist, and I would love to see it brought to light if it does. But the thing about slavery, and specifically the USA's commercial cotton slavery: it's fucking awful enough if you just list verifiable facts without aggrandizing. Even if everything in this article were true, it doesn't move the needle much farther beyond the baseline of American slave ownership.

If you're going to broadly claim "America's founding fathers were sex traffickers that raped children" then please, name names! Bring receipts! You can't open with...

These facts are not debatable. [Child sex trafficking] happened.

...and then lay out a single link rehashing that Thomas Jefferson was a massive piece of shit. What do we know about the other 54+ Founding Fathers?

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

baseless hyperbole

an absolutely incredible claim requiring incredible proof

I do not think it is much of a stretch to think that there were a fuckton of rapists in times past, judging by the fuckton of rapists in contemporary time. To be honest, I think it is awful of you to assume that men in positions of power do not rape, when we have so much evidence that they do (and please do not talk to me about "not all men rape", because that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about systemic issues).

Boys at 16 years old rape sleeping girls, because they can. Film directors and businessmen (unsuccessful ones as Trump as well) rape women and children, because they can. Slave owners raped their slaves, because they could. This is a question of power dynamics.

Bring receipts!

No.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] F_State@midwest.social 42 points 5 days ago (10 children)

Especially Jefferson. Not Franklin though. Benjamin Franklin in a letter to a young man listed 8 reasons why an older mistress was preferable to a younger one.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Belly_Beanis@hexbear.net 26 points 5 days ago (4 children)

AFAIK Ben Franklin preferred old women. And I mean old. Like over 70. Lots of letters to people telling them how widows are the best partners because they know what they're doing. And that they're more open to threesomes/foursomes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 69 points 5 days ago (8 children)

Who is downvoting this? Legitimately.

[–] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 34 points 5 days ago

European settlers

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] cornishon@lemmygrad.ml 14 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

In fact, it goes back all the way to Christopher Columbus: https://museumfacts.co.uk/atrocities-committed-by-christopher-columbus/

All European colonizers were child sex traffikers (among the rest of their crimes).

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 61 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Maybe not Franklin. He’s on record as preferring older ladies.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Meron35@lemmy.world 12 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Inb4 conservatives change from

"Mary was a teenager"

to

"The Founding Fathers were pedophiles too"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›