Historical Update...circa 1987.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

That's pretty much the problem. The difference between Jefferson and 'the Klan' is just gigantic.

When did Jefferson ever call for a program of terrorist murder against anyone who threatened the ascendancy of the white aristocracy?

When did David Duke ever say anything like this?



(Hmmm...perhaps I will change my username....)

Like I wouldn't know it was you if you changed your username.

A racist is a racist. On the continuum of racists, I see considerably more commonalities than differences. Jefferson saw black people as less than human. Had he not, he would not have had ownership. Had he not, he would have made sure that his Constitution did not allow for slavery to remain in place in the new union. If his fellow founders objected to that, he would have been free to withdraw his collaboration and support and simply let the other slave owning founders write the Constitution that did not address the issue of slavery, without him. I don't see the "differences" as gigantic at all. Minimal...pretty much.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Like I wouldn't know it was you if you changed your username.

Oh, to hide from you was not the idea with the name change thought. Wha, did you just skim the Jefferson quote?

As for the rest of your post, let's just say I did read the Jefferson quote, attentively.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

... why did Lincoln believe the Union was more important than slavery?

Pete

When the war came he wasn't an abolitionist.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

When the war came he wasn't an abolitionist.

True. He was always against slavery, but he saw complications to the idea of just abolishing it.

[BlueStreak]

I love to piss wingnuts off with the following statement;

"You have it backwards. America did not start off with wonderful freedom and wander from it. We started off with unfulfilled promises and tyranny and strove towards freedom."

The implication being that anyone who wants to return to "....what the founders did." is rather a wannabe tyrant themselves or a damned fool. Being men of their time, some of the founders did not live by their own words.

Have a nice day, Fellas.

Dave

[Tom Joad]

I am sick and tired of hearing the term "Founding Fathers".

From now on I am going to refer to them as the "Founding Fuckers".

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

True. He was always against slavery, but he saw complications to the idea of just abolishing it.

Generally the people of the northern states.had little concern for the slaves in the south. Certainly not enough to fight and possibly die for any slaves. Lincoln could have easily lost whatever popular support he had for maintaining the Union had he made the primary goal abolition and not Union. I believe at a particularly difficult time, he commented to the effect that should he make the issue freeing the slaves, half the Union army would desert, and a half dozen more states would secede. For most of the war he walked this tightrope.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Generally the people of the northern states.had little concern for the slaves in the south. Certainly not enough to fight and possibly die for any slaves. Lincoln could have easily lost whatever popular support he had for maintaining the Union had he made the primary goal abolition and not Union. I believe at a particularly difficult time, he commented to the effect that should he make the issue freeing the slaves, half the Union army would desert, and a half dozen more states would secede. For most of the war he walked this tightrope.

That's the truth, Ike.

But, the root cause of Southern secession was indeed an agricultural tax meant to target slave owners. Slavery may have existed to some degree in the North, but the South was far more dependent on it as a driver of their economy. Using taxation to exert economic pressure and influence behavior was as much a tactic then as it is now. Let us not forget that the abolition issue was nothing new at the time. It had been brewing for nearly a hundred years.

Actually, I'd say the fight never really ended. It simply changed modes at some point from white versus black, north vs. south to Union vs. Right to Work, free market vs. government control. The battle lines are less distinct, but they exist nonetheless. The market favors the lower cost. So, many states have turned against their own workers, suppressing wages, union activity and opposing federal regulation whenever they can in order to draw business from other states. Some here actually like this shit. I see it as a catalyst for wage slavery. Instead of the union scales of northern factory workers exerting upward pressure on wages the way it did in years past, it employs the lower wages and relative docility of southern (and foreign) workers to exert downward pressure. Hence the drain of manufacturing jobs from north to south and ultimately.......out of the country altogether. I believe this is what has dragged us down more than anything else and it will continue to do so until folks can no longer live off of their wages and blame it on all the wrong people........Hey, we're already there!!!!!!

That's how I see it. But, that's me, I'm crazy that way.

Dave

[nailer]

What antebellum agriculture tax are you referencing Dave?

[BlueStreak]

With a quick search, I believe this is what I was referring too;

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readin...b?OpenDocument

There was actually more than one attempt by the Feds to tax slavery, as this article indicates. Some southern states already taxed slaves as property. The federal attempts were meant by abolitionists to be punitive, which was found to be abhorrent to many southerners.

Dave