With the left on a mission to change everything that has anything to do with slavery, including destroying Abraham Lincoln statues, maybe New York should not get a free pass. After all New York, the holy land for liberalism, is named after a horrendous slave trader.

The Daily Caller reports:

“New York, both the city and the state, is named after the house of York and particularly for James Stuart, then Duke of York, one of the most successful slavers in colonial American history.

“James Stuart conquered the settlements between the Delaware and the Connecticut rivers from the Dutch in 1664, and the name of the principal port, New Amsterdam, was promptly changed to honor the new master. James’ brother, King Charles II of England, gave the territory to the duke in exchange for four beaver pelts annually.

“The Duke of York, who later became King James I of England (and James VII of Scotland), created Britain’s greatest slave empire known as the Royal African Company, which transported between 90,000 and 100,000 African slaves to the Caribbean and American colonies between 1672 and 1689.”

The company quickly became the largest slave trade company in the world. In a twenty year period they brought 30,000 African slaves to the Caribbean.

New York fought for the Union in the Civil War and emancipated slaves in 1799 but still kept their name, obviously.

However, many in New York felt the Union should dissolve and other immigrants believed freed slaves would take jobs away.

But if we’re going to dismantle anything that has a sordid history with slavery perhaps they should change their name. On the other hand, such an idea may seem rather stupid. Which of course brings up the question on whether sanitizing history is a bad idea overall.

What do you think? VOTE:

Should ‘New York’ Change Their Name Since They’re Named After A Slave Trader?

Yes
No
Not sure

Poll Maker