But Did She Lie Tho'? Why Joy Reid Is Right That America’s Founders Were Leeches and Murderers

Here they go again. Right-wing media operatives, culture-war bloggers, and professional patriots diggin’ through old-ass footage, old-ass transcripts, old-ass archives, desperate to pull a clip they can wave around as evidence that a Black woman hates America.

The tired formula never changes.

They exhume a comment or video clip, strip it of context, slap “rant” in the headline, and frame truth-telling as yet another step toward tyranny. This time, the target is former MSNBC host Joy Reid, whose so-called offense was stating plainly what generations of historians have already documented, that the United States was founded by white men who mass murdered Indigenous people, enslaved Africans, and rebelled in part to avoid paying taxes.

What’s funny to me is how enraged white audiences become when Black people say out loud what white folks once said proudly about themselves, recorded meticulously in letters, diaries, speeches, and founding documents, and preserved in the very archives now being weaponized to accuse us of lying.

What no one seemed particularly interested in asking was the only question that actually matters: But did she lie tho?

Reid’s remarks have been picked up by multiple outlets, almost all of them framing the moment as a controversy rather than a historical question. A headline from the Daily Caller set the tone: “Joy Reid Calls Founding Fathers ‘Leeches,’ ‘Killers’ In Resurfaced Rant”. The piece was quickly republished and summarized across platforms, including by AOL News, helping the clip travel beyond conservative media ecosystems and into mainstream news feeds.

Much of the coverage casts Reid’s comments as part of a supposed “national firestorm,” leaning heavily on the language of spectacle and backlash. Readers are told that her words have sparked outrage, that she has accused the founders of genocide, and that the remarks themselves, rather than their accuracy, are the story. The repetition of phrases like “resurfaced rant” and “inflammatory comments” does the work of framing the issue before any substance is examined. Nowhere in that framing is there sustained engagement with the historical record Reid was referencing.

Instead of asking how many founders enslaved people, or whether colonial expansion involved mass killing and dispossession, the coverage fixates on her tone. Terms like “killers,” “leeches,” and references to the scale of Indigenous death are treated as provocation rather than description. The result is a familiar maneuver in which the historical violence is not rebutted so much as aestheticized into something impolite. In both the Daily Caller and AOL coverage, emphasis falls not on evidence, but on whether Reid’s language makes audiences uncomfortable.

The most detailed write-ups come from outlets openly hostile to Reid and her politics. There has been little effort from mainstream media or academic-facing platforms to contextualize her remarks within established historical scholarship. That imbalance matters, because it shapes what readers are invited to consider. When critique is filtered almost exclusively through ideologically opposed outlets, the conversation becomes less about history and more about disciplining dissent, especially when that dissent comes from a Black woman speaking plainly about white violence.

The historical claims themselves, including the enslavement, the genocide, and the tax revolts, are treated as background noise to the spectacle of a Black woman refusing deference. And that, more than anything Reid said, explains why the clip was worth resurfacing at all.

Reid said killers. She said slaughter. She said entitlement. When people commit genocide, traffic humans, and build an empire on theft, what language exactly would y’all prefer we use?

The problem is that Reid punctured one of this country’s most carefully guarded myths that the white men who founded the United States were fundamentally different from the violence they unleashed.

Reid’s accurate language clashes with the popular image of early European colonists as freedom-seeking families fleeing religious persecution. From the 17th century forward, England treated its colonies, including those that would become the United States, as repositories for people it did not want. Tens of thousands of convicts, debtors, political prisoners, and people convicted of violent crimes were transported to North America under sentences of forced labor. “Transportation” was frequently an alternative to execution at the gallows. Many of these individuals would have been hanged in Britain had they not been shipped abroad.

This was not incidental. The colonies were built as disposable spaces where brutality was normalized. Indentured servitude routinely blurred into lifetime bondage. Violence became a governing tool. Survival depended on domination of land, of labor, and of human beings deemed expendable. European settlers did not politely arrive to build houses. They arrived armed, sanctioned by empire, and prepared to kill.

And they did.

From New England to the Southeast, colonists waged sustained campaigns of violence against Indigenous nations. Entire villages were burned. Crops were destroyed. Water sources were poisoned. Civilians, women and children included, were massacred. Colonial governments authorized bounties for Indigenous scalps. Militias were deployed specifically to terrorize survivors into displacement. These were not spontaneous “conflicts.” They were deliberate strategies of extermination and land theft.

The demographic result was genocidal. Indigenous populations across what became the United States declined by as much as 80 to 90 percent due to warfare, forced removals, starvation, enslavement, and diseases that were often spread knowingly or exploited opportunistically by white settlers. This was not tragic inevitability. It was policy. Mass murder was a mechanism of expansion.

At the same time, white settlers perfected systems of violence against each other and against Africans they kidnapped, sold, and enslaved. Colonial society was brutally punitive. Public executions were spectacles. Whippings were routine. Enslaved Africans were tortured, raped, mutilated, and killed with impunity under slave codes that defined them as “property” rather than people. Killing an enslaved person was framed as economic loss, not murder. The law was explicit that white violence was legal.

These legal regimes did not emerge accidentally. They were written, refined, and protected by the very men later celebrated as the Founding Fathers.

By the time the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, enslavement was absolutely central to American political life. Of the 55 delegates who attended the Convention, at least 25 owned enslaved people. These were not fringe participants. They were the architects of the nation’s governing framework.

George Washington enslaved at least 317 people over the course of his lifetime. Mount Vernon functioned through forced labor enforced by beatings, surveillance, family separation, and the relentless pursuit of fugitives. As president, Washington signed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, empowering the federal government to capture escaped enslaved people anywhere in the country. He also authorized violent military actions against civilian populations when federal authority was challenged, demonstrating that state violence was an acceptable response to dissent.

Thomas Jefferson enslaved more than 600 people. At Monticello, enslaved families lived under constant threat of sale and punishment. Jefferson sold human beings to cover his debts, approved whippings, and benefited financially from the sexual exploitation of Sally Hemings, whom he legally owned. The children he fathered with her were enslaved by statute. Jefferson’s writings show he anticipated Indigenous extermination and was willing to endorse it. His vision of American expansion required removal or destruction.

James Madison enslaved over 100 people and never freed them. Madison’s most lasting legacy is the Constitution, which did not merely tolerate slavery, but structurally protected it. The Three-Fifths Compromise inflated the political power of enslavers by counting enslaved people for representation while denying them rights. The Fugitive Slave Clause committed the federal government to enforcing human captivity. These were calculated decisions that embedded racial violence into American law.

Other founders followed suit.

George Mason, hailed in textbooks as a defender of liberty, enslaved hundreds of people and helped author Virginia’s slave code, a legal system that didn’t merely tolerate violence against Black bodies but institutionalized it by authorizing beatings, family separation, and death as lawful tools of governance.

Patrick Henry, who was famous for saying “give me liberty or give me death,” enslaved dozens of people and recognized slavery as a moral evil, yet continued to extract wealth from human bondage anyway, demonstrating that the founders’ highest ideals routinely collapsed when they interfered with profit.

Charles Pinckney enslaved over 200 people and leveraged his role as a constitutional framer to protect the transatlantic slave trade, securing a twenty-year constitutional shield for the mass kidnapping, sale, and forced labor of African people.

These are the historical facts. These are the men we were told to revere. Not because they refrained from violence, but because they packaged it as governance, dressed it in Enlightenment language, and called it a republic.

When Joy Reid calls these men murderers, she is using a definition Americans reserve selectively. Murder does not require a knife held personally. It requires intent, authority, and outcome. Enacting policies that knowingly produce mass death is murder. Ordering campaigns of extermination is murder. Writing laws that permit torture, rape, and killing without consequence is murder stretched across generations.

The American Revolution itself fits this pattern. Reid was right when she said that colonial elites didn’t want to pay taxes.

British taxes in the colonies were significantly lower than those paid by people living in Britain. What angered colonial leaders was oversight. After the Seven Years’ War, Britain sought to recoup costs and regulate westward expansion through measures like the Proclamation Line of 1763, which limited settler encroachment on Indigenous land. That limitation threatened land speculation, enslavement, and profit.

Many of the Revolution’s loudest advocates were wealthy enslavers and merchants who wanted imperial protection without financial responsibility. They wanted British military power to protect shipping lanes, suppress revolts, and enforce property rights without paying for it. Independence insulated slavery from growing abolitionist sentiment in Britain. The Revolution preserved human bondage.

So when Reid says the founders “didn’t even want to pay taxes,” she is not trivializing history. She is describing an elite revolt aimed at protecting wealth and exploitation.

What truly unsettles Americans about these facts is not their brutality, but their implications.

So if the founders were not flawed heroes but deliberate perpetrators of racism, greed, and violence, then the moral foundation of the nation becomes unstable. The comforting belief that American institutions are fundamentally virtuous collapses. Genocide stops looking like an aberration. Slavery stops looking like a deviation. Modern inequalities stop seeming accidental and more like lineage and historical echoes.

That is why Reid’s truth inspires panic.

Americans rely on a specific mythology that the founders had noble intentions, that the nation merely needs to “live up to its ideals,” that violence was a mistake rather than a design. If the origin story is rotten, then the present makes sense. Policing, incarceration, racial inequality, and land theft all appears less like failure and more like inheritance.

This is why historical honesty is treated as a threat.

Book bans, attacks on critical race theory, the dismantling of DEI programs, and the obsession with “patriotic education” are not random. They are defensive measures. A population educated in truth is less governable by nostalgia. Children who learn that their nation was built through theft and blood are less likely to sanctify authority.

Calling the founders murderers is not an attack on America. It is a refusal to protect a lie. Joy Reid did not revise history. She stripped it of euphemism. And in a moment where truth itself is under siege, where memory is criminalized and discomfort is treated as harm, that act is unforgivable to those invested in silence.

If America cannot survive an honest accounting of its birth, the problem is not Joy Reid. It is the story America has been telling itself all along.

If white Americans accept that their forefathers were murderers and leeches, the reckoning doesn’t stop in the past. It turns inward. It raises uncomfortable questions about inheritance, about what was stolen, laundered, normalized, and passed down. It demands an audit of whether today’s security, mobility, and authority are earned, or the compounded interest of violence no one was ever required to repay.

And then comes the question they work hardest to avoid: if this is how the system was built, and I benefit from it, what does that make me?

Not individually evil, perhaps, but undeniably implicated. Not personally guilty of conquest or enslavement, but positioned inside a structure that still distributes advantage along the same lines those crimes carved. Once that question is asked honestly, innocence becomes much harder to perform.

Because if the foundation was murderous and stolen, then the foundation of the house is rotten. And if the house is rotten, then living comfortably inside it without interrogation is a choice. Accepting the truth about the founders means confronting whiteness not as a natural identity, but as a political construction designed to protect spoils. It means recognizing that what feels like normalcy to some is the afterlife of serial killing and theft to others.

That is the real threat Joy Reid poses. She forces the question white America has been trained never to ask itself: Who am I in relation to this history not as myth, but as fact?

And at the end of the day, the real issue is that a Black woman, descendant of enslaved people, was never supposed to say any of this. She was supposed to soothe, to soften, to absorb the violence quietly, to serve as mammy to the fiction of white innocence. Gratitude was the assignment and silence was the expectation. And Joy Reid failed beautifully and deliciously.

Instead, Joy Reid came armed with history. Harvard-educated. Unapologetic. Fluent in the archive. And she committed the ultimate offense by using her educational training not to defend the myth, but to dismantle that shit. In this country, a Black woman weaponizing education against white men is fucking treasonous as hell. They hate that Black women like us learned to read and play linguistic origami on they asses. That hatred is as old as the laws that once tried to stop it.

If you found this history clarifying and necessary, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. This work exists because someone has to be willing to read the archives honestly, say what they actually say, and refuse the myths we’ve been trained to protect. Paid subscriptions don’t just support this writing. They also help me raise money for HBCU journalism students. Paid subscriptions pay for textbooks, laptops, cameras, lights, mics, software, reporting trips, conference registration, and even food. Thank you for your support!