Time to remove Jefferson monuments?

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. In Jefferson's time, slaves were considered farm animals. Thomas Jefferson had sex with his slaves - his farm animals. In Jefferson's time this would have been considered the equivalent of bestiality. 

Do we, as a Christian nation, want to venerate a man who is guilty of bestiality?

Just sayin...

Edited August 20, 2017 by AmishRnot4ganja

[Restorium2]

Thomas Jefferson’s Top 10 Achievements and Contributions

+ Degreed

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, was born 271 years ago this month. Here are 10 ways he contributed to American life and politics.
1. Wrote The Declaration of Independence (1776)
Thomas Jefferson was appointed by Congress to a five-person committee in charge of writing The Declaration of Independence. The other four members were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston. Jefferson was responsible for writing the first draft—within 17 days, the draft document was written, reviewed and revised by the committee, and presented to Congress.

2. Wrote The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1777)
Jefferson considered The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom to be one of his greatest accomplishments. This document, which was introduced into the Virginia General Assembly in 1779, declared freedom of religion a “natural right” and became a model for the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
3. Advocated for free public education (1779)
Jefferson was an early advocate of having an informed populace. In 1779, he wrote A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, which outlined a plan for establishing Virginia public schools where “all the free children, male and female” were to be given three years of instruction in reading, writing, arithmetic, and history. The bill was defeated in the state legislature, but it laid the groundwork for free public education.

4. Served as the first U.S. Secretary of State (1790–1793)
Jefferson served as the country’s first Secretary of State under President George Washington. In this office, he advocated for each state to pay its own portion of the Revolutionary War debt and supported France in its war with Britain, though he believed the United States should maintain neutrality in the conflict.
5. Made the Louisiana Purchase (1803)
In 1803 as President of the United States, Jefferson purchased more than 800,000 square miles of Louisiana Territory from France for about $15 million, effectively doubling the size of the United States.

6. Launched the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804)
Having just greatly increased the size of the United States, Jefferson wanted to explore both the new part of the country and the rest of the continent. He appointed as his personal secretary Meriwether Lewis, who then enlisted William Clark. They left on their journey in 1804 with the goals of learning more about the landscape and the Native American tribes, and of finding a water passage between the Mississippi River and the Pacific Ocean.
7. Participated in the founding of the Library of Congress (1815)
James H. Billington, the current Librarian of Congress, wrote: “If ever a library had a single founder, Thomas Jefferson is the founder of the Library of Congress.” In 1815, Jefferson sold his personal library, consisting of almost 6,700 volumes, to the federal government for just under $24,000. These books formed the core collection of the Library of Congress.

8. Founded the University of Virginia (1819)
Jefferson thought universities should educate leaders rather than just preachers and professors. He founded the University of Virginia as the United States’ first nonsectarian university as well as the first to use the elective course system.
9. Revolutionized gardening and advanced sustainable agriculture
Jefferson experimented with various gardening techniques and was a huge fan of eating his vegetables, which he grew at his home of Monticello. At that time, many people believed that certain vegetables, like tomatoes, were poisonous, but Jefferson loved them. He also pioneered many efforts in sustainable agriculture.

10. Popularized macaroni and cheese in the United States
In his early career, Jefferson traveled in Europe and became enamored with its cuisine, especially pasta. He served macaroni and cheese to guests at Monticello and even drew plans for a macaroni machine. He has been referred to as a “Founding Foodie” and “America’s First Foodie,” and there is even a mac ‘n’ cheese recipe in his own handwriting.

Photo Credits: “United States 1803-04” by Golbez [CC-BY-SA-3.0]; “Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello Estate” by Christopher Hollis for Wdwic Pictures [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

[AmishRnot4ganja]

...and he was a Beastie Boy.

See that statue in the background of the portrait? That is Sally Hemmings, his sex slave.

See where his hand is in the portrait? Grabbin his junk for Sally.

 

Just sayin...

Edited August 20, 2017 by AmishRnot4ganja

[mishigami bear]

Quote

In Jefferson's time this would have been considered the equivalent of bestiality. 

In Jefferson's time this would have been considered commonplace. Thomas Jefferson was not an anomaly. Shtupping the help is a long held tradition, going all the way down to Strom Thurmond and Arnold Shwarzenegger. 

[AmishRnot4ganja]

My point here is that in order to make slavery acceptable, pro slavery groups had to portray the subjects of slavery as less than human using the same tactics that the "White Supremacists" of today use. 

So slave owners had to regard their slaves as less than human and not worthy of being treated like a fellow human being. Slaves were treated like beasts of labor and having sex with beasts is considered bestiality. You can't have it both ways. Either the civil war was fought and won for a just cause or it wasn't. If, as some groups believe, the Civil War was not fought for a just cause then the views of the slave owners was correct and Thomas Jefferson is guilty of bestiality. The "Christian" Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the Moral Majority of the Republican party should be calling for the removal of Jefferson monuments or they need to admit they were wrong and agree to the removal of Confederate monuments.

Edited August 21, 2017 by AmishRnot4ganja

[AmishRnot4ganja]

18 minutes ago, zapatosunidos said:

I got it the first time. Explaining it more thoroughly doesn't make it any better. It's one of the worst arguments against slavery and the Confederacy I've ever heard.

Some people don't get it and they need things explained to them in terms that they can understand. High level, logical arguments don't work with irrational people. Things need to be brought down to a visceral level where they dwell.

Edited August 21, 2017 by AmishRnot4ganja

[Restorium2]

The way I see it is we have some fore fathers that did some things that might not be something to be proud of. You would have had to know the relationship they had with their slaves. You would have to have been there.

To equate the things they did that might be suspect to that of the treason and murdering of our fellow citizens by people like General Lee is just not a good comparison, to say the least.

People just need to understand that the secession of southern states because they wanted to keep slavery going, causing our civil war, was a very bad idea to begin with and those that took the ball and ran with it are not American Heroes. They are the opposite, they are American Villains. 

We can't even get them to understand that the civil war was fought over slavery. They have wrapped that fact up in toilet paper like a turd mummy, trying to hide their terrible past motivation.

The fact that they hide from the truth like that shows they understand the embarrassing stance they had back then and find it too terrible to admit now ....

Just like they pretended to not know what "Make America Great Again", really meant. It's very thinly veiled ugliness.

This is obviously one of those times in history where things had to get worse to get better. 

Display the king in public with no clothes on to show the ugliness for what it is. We all know the story and the moral. It's one for the masses. For the whole world to watch. 

Edited August 21, 2017 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

So slave owners had to regard their slaves as less than human and not worthy of being treated like a fellow human being.

That mentality covers more than just slave owners, it covers what is in the poisoned minds today. In the south and the north.

I wonder if President Lincoln would have fought that war if he wasn't gay? He knew what it was like to be what so many hate, different. 

 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” 
 

 

[Restorium2]

15 minutes ago, Scarlet_Begonias said:

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” 
 

 

All the more reason to take down the monuments to slavery so we can all move on.

Negro Race????????????? How many people are 100% any ethnicity? I bet a lot more folks are part black than realize it. And a lot more black folks that are part something else. There really is no 'Negro Race' anymore. Time to mix it up, admit it's already mixed up, and move along. 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

Well considering that was the word used to describe blacks 

100 plus years ago I'm not going to alter a historical book to feed a self serving and ill informed narrative. Equal to book burning, censorship, tearing down statues. Especially that it was written by a former slave Booker T. Washington.

As for white supremacists originating concept of race, I wouldn't give them that much credit. 

What we know as race goes back to pre biblical times when a person's nation, tribe, geographical area was used to describe them. Currently you may want to blame the Portuguese for that since they called Africans black or "Negro" on their way to find a sea route to India. Seems that white supremacists were a little late to that game. 

As for Homo Sapien originating in Africa this is an interesting study. Looks like the precursor came from Europe.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

". . .for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart"

If everyone just looked at the character of a man, but we couldn't have that, it would be too easy to not have anyone to hate.

 

[Restorium2]

52 minutes ago, Scarlet_Begonias said:

Well considering that was the word used to describe blacks 

100 plus years ago I'm not going to alter a historical book to feed a self serving and ill informed narrative. Equal to book burning, censorship, tearing down statues. Especially that it was written by a former slave Booker T. Washington.

As for white supremacists originating concept of race, I wouldn't give them that much credit. 

What we know as race goes back to pre biblical times when a person's nation, tribe, geographical area was used to describe them. Currently you may want to blame the Portuguese for that since they called Africans black or "Negro" on their way to find a sea route to India. Seems that white supremacists were a little late to that game. 

As for Homo Sapien originating in Africa this is an interesting study. Looks like the precursor came from Europe.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

 

 

 

 

 

 

My retort was at a quote you made that was way behind the times. You don't need to take it personal. It's just old and useless now. Like identifying by race.

[Restorium2]

Each and every one of these monuments deserves it's own debate. There's no template to put over them to decide which ones to take down. No easy way out. No quick fixes. Each one will have to be debated in an appropriate forum of locals. Happens in all countries. 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

Restorium didn't take anything remotely personal. 

Zap Booker T Washington is arguably one of the most influential black leaders 19th and 20th centuries. He was a champion to blacks across this country. I'd find it safe to assume no black person wants to go back to the time of southern democrats. 

Restorium how can they get a fair debate if you want to rewrite history and say what is good and bad. Sounds pretty fascistic, HIStory

Thank goodness for the 1nd amendment.

Himdsightt is 20/20 

 

[Restorium2]

2 hours ago, Scarlet_Begonias said:

Restorium didn't take anything remotely personal. 

Zap Booker T Washington is arguably one of the most influential black leaders 19th and 20th centuries. He was a champion to blacks across this country. I'd find it safe to assume no black person wants to go back to the time of southern democrats. 

Restorium how can they get a fair debate if you want to rewrite history and say what is good and bad. Sounds pretty fascistic, HIStory

Thank goodness for the 1nd amendment.

Himdsightt is 20/20 

 

You are being intentionally vague. What part of history are you saying is being rewritten? 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

The quote is simple and explains that their are people that profit financially from these divisive actions. The removal of statues isn't an organic protest, these people are being funded by organizations that want to subvert our Country. 

People trashed Joan of Arc's statue this weekend and a memorial to people from the Holocaust. It is apparent we aren't dealing with the brightest bunch.

They must be #bronzephobic

Question is what is next and when is it enough.

 

 

 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

Restorium, I'm not being intentionally anything. Im being as simple and straight to the point. Why do you continue to project with every reply? That isn't a question forget it I'll get another stupid response.

If you alter history then how can you can fairly debate the issue? Is the point

 

 

[Restorium2]

10 hours ago, Scarlet_Begonias said:

Restorium, I'm not being intentionally anything. Im being as simple and straight to the point. Why do you continue to project with every reply? That isn't a question forget it I'll get another stupid response.

If you alter history then how can you can fairly debate the issue? Is the point

 

 

Altering history how? 

[Restorium2]

People alter history different ways. Sometimes it's in their mind. Sometimes they find fossils and that corrects history. Sometimes people try to alter history because they can't handle the truth. Orwell wrote about omission of facts to alter history. He said that it is revolutionary to press for the truth in times like these. 

We have to have specifics of how history is being altered to have an intelligent dialog. It's just a wet blanket over all history when left vague. A problem has to be defined to be fixed. 

[Restorium2]

I'm not being paid either, LOL!

I love history and like the opposing views when they are expressed and not vague. We need some SUBSTANCE here.

Like this;

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, the Civil War 150 years later and its relevance today.

The anniversary of the war’s beginning was commemorated this morning with a re-enactment of the attack on the Union base at Fort Sumter in Charleston, S.C.

Before our discussion, a bit of history. Here’s an excerpt of how documentary maker Ken Burns described that moment in his PBS series “The Civil War.” It was narrated by historian David McCullough.

DAVID MCCULLOUGH, narrator: The Civil War began at 4:30 a.m. on the 12th of April, 1861. Gen. Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard ordered his Confederate gunners to open fire on Fort Sumter, at that hour, only a dark shape out in Charleston Harbor.

Confederate Commander Beauregard was a gunner, so skilled as an artillery student at West Point, that his instructor kept him on as an assistant for another year. That instructor was Maj. Robert Anderson, Union commander inside Fort Sumter.

MAN: All the pent-up hatred of the past months and years is voiced in the thunder of these cannon, and the people seem almost beside themselves in the exaltation of a freedom they deem already won.

DAVID MCCULLOUGH: The signal to fire the first shot was given by a civilian, Edmund Ruffin, a Virginia farmer, an editor who had preached secession for 20 years.

“Of course,” he said, “I was delighted to perform the service.”

Thirty-four hours later, a white flag over the fort ended the bombardment. The only casualty had been a Confederate horse. It was a bloodless opening to the bloodiest war in American history.

MAN: The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded a death knell of slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced.

JUDY WOODRUFF: More now on the history and the legacy of the Civil War.

And for that, we’re joined by three historians who have studied it closely. Drew Gilpin Faust is the president of Harvard University. She’s written a number of books about the Civil War. Edna Medford teaches at Howard University. She focuses on the Civil War and African-American history. And Walter Edgar is a professor of history and Southern studies at the University of South Carolina.

Thank you, all three. We appreciate your being with us.

I just want to quickly share with our audience two findings from a poll that was done this month by the Pew Research Center. When people were asked their reaction to seeing the Confederate flag displayed, 9 percent said they had a positive reaction, 30 percent a negative reaction, and 58 percent said neither. And when people were asked what do they think the main cause of the Civil War is, 48 percent said mainly about states’ rights. Only 38 percent said mainly about slavery. Nine percent said both.

So, to each of you, what do historians think was the cause of the Civil War? And what do you think?

Drew Faust?

DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University: Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.

And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.

So, the kind of percentages that you quote are ones that must necessarily be disturbing to historians, who believe quite differently from the general public.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Edna Medford, any idea about why that perception is out there, given the pretty common view among historians, which I assume you share?

49684Civil War Enthusiasts Reenact the Opening Shots of the WarCivil War reenactors commemorated the 150th Anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War by recreating the original Confederate shots on Fort Sumter outside Charleston, S.C.2011-04-12 16:44:00disabledhide18799819267XCzn-hTwsw

Civil War Enthusiasts Reenact the Opening Shots of the War

EDNA MEDFORD, Howard University: Oh, absolutely. It’s all about slavery.

But I think Americans, unfortunately, don’t know our own history, first of all. And, at some point, of course, after the war, the nation sort of came together and decided that it was going to forget what the real cause was, because it was too painful to remember that slavery was what divided the nation.

And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it’s unfortunate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.

Professor Walter Edgar, how do you account for that, the fact that historians are pretty unified in this view, but the public isn’t?

WALTER EDGAR, University of South Carolina: Well, it’s — it’s — I would agree with Professor Medford that perhaps it’s — people don’t know their own history.

And even more disturbing, in that poll, it was mostly younger responders who did the states’ rights answer, as opposed to older ones. All I can do in South Carolina is go back to what the 169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, and in their declaration of causes, that it was — said it was protect slavery and their other domestic institutions.

And the men of 1860 and 1861 in other Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Professor Edgar, is — do you think there persists a different view among — in the South, among Southerners?

WALTER EDGAR: White Southerners and black Southerners, because both black and white are Southerners. I think, among white Southerners, there is — there’s disagreement. Some would say states’ rights. Some would say slavery. I have even heard the tariff mentioned.

Very few people talk as much about the election of Lincoln, although that was a defining factor in South Carolina’s decision to secede.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Drew Faust, I mean, you have looked at this, and I know you have traveled around the country and spoken a lot about it. How do you see the evolution of people’s understanding of the war, the Civil War?

DREW GILPIN FAUST: Evolution over time, since…

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

DREW GILPIN FAUST: Well, we had a critical moment in the understanding of the Civil War and the nature of engagement with the Civil War that happened around the time of the centennial, 50 years ago, when the centennial and the civil rights movement were occurring pretty much simultaneously.

And, so, even as many Americans wanted to celebrate the Civil War and engage in kind of a nostalgic connection with it, there was at the same time such a powerful social movement that was asking all Americans to interrogate themselves about, where does race play a role in American life, and what was the real legacy of the war, and have we fulfilled the promise of equality and freedom that was an essential part of the war?

So, I think that was a transformative time in the kinds of research questions that historians then took up and the way in which the public began to battle and to reinterpret the Civil War.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Edna Medford, are the questions that historians are asking themselves, yourselves, about the war, have those questions changed over time, do you think?

EDNA MEDFORD: I think we still are dealing with the same kinds of issues.

What’s wonderful is that there are more of us who are in agreement than there used to be. And I think it’s because documentation has become so much more available to us…

JUDY WOODRUFF: What did it used…

EDNA MEDFORD: … because of digitization and so forth.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what did it used to be? How would you explain…

EDNA MEDFORD: Well — well, certainly, there was that perspective, that Southern perspective about the war: We may have lost the war, but we — it was such a noble cause for which we fought.

And historians supported that for a number of years. And I think now, to take that position, you’re sort of on the fringes of — of historiography. Most trained historians would never come to those conclusions.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Professor Edgar, how do you see that as somebody who, you were raised in the South and you teach in the South now?

WALTER EDGAR: Well, you know, things clearly have changed since the 1950s, when I was in school.

And I think one of the things we could look at is the observance, or really the nonobservance, of Confederate Memorial Day throughout the South. Growing up in Mobile, Ala., it was a big deal. On the day closest to Confederate Memorial in Alabama, which was April the 26th, parading through the streets were the private military school. All the politicians were there. The graves were decorated.

Now, pretty much, it’s a nonevent there and most everywhere else. There’s — quote — “an observance,” but it doesn’t draw people to the streets, and certainly not to the Confederate Rest.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Was there a moment when that stopped happening, or has that just faded away over time?

WALTER EDGAR: It’s really been over time.

But, as Professor Faust said, the 1960s were pretty much a defining moment. And one of the interesting questions I would ask about the Pew poll when they asked about the Confederate flag, which Confederate flag are they discussing? Are they talking about the battle flag, which I suspect they are? Are they talking about the Confederate national flag, which many states, such as Alabama and Georgia, still fly at historic sites?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Very interesting question. And I don’t know the answer to that.

Does — do you? Does either one of you?

DREW GILPIN FAUST: An important part of this issue of the Confederate flag is that the Confederate battle flag, which is the flag we associate with Dixie today, and the one that is most commonly regarded as having been the Confederate flag, actually was not adopted very widely until late in the war.

It was not the flag, the official flag of the Confederate nation. And it began to play a big role in American life at the time of the civil rights movement as an expression of protest against the changes in American culture and race and its place in American life.

So, in many ways, that poll about the Confederate flag is more about, again, the 1960s than it is about the 1860s.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Another question that was asked in that poll was about how relevant people believe the war is to American political life today. And more than half said they do think it’s relevant.

Professor Medford, what do you believe is relevant today to American life about this war that we fought so long ago?

EDNA MEDFORD: You know, I think we spend so much time on the war these days. And it’s great that we are, because that war helps us define who we are now, who we were then and who we are now.

And I think that we have so much difficulty with it, because we all have different views of what America is. And it’s such a painful history. It’s very hard to look back. And so, when we do look back, we try to do so in a way that’s not going to be too harmful to us psychologically, I think.

The war has tremendous relevance to us today. We have an opportunity to sort of get it right this time with the sesquicentennial. That war put us on the path to true freedom in this country. I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but we have the opportunity to sort of renew that commitment to true freedom at this point.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It’s interesting you make the point that there’s a choice about how we look back…

EDNA MEDFORD: Absolutely.

JUDY WOODRUFF: … at the war.

What about you, Professor Edgar? What do you think is relevant to American life today about this war?

WALTER EDGAR: Well, clearly, the nation — the Civil War was a crucial dilemma, crucial point in American history. And it changed us. And it made us one nation.

And I think the memory issue that Professor Medford talks about, it is very important, because if you look at the physical losses in — by the white South, not just in terms of property, but also in terms of human life, that’s part of the picture that is still handed down in many families today.

In a little state like South Carolina, over 30 percent of the eligible white male population died in the war. That’s twice the figure that the European nations lost in World War I, where they supposedly all lost a generation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Drew Faust, you have written about the human suffering. Your book, “This Republic of Suffering,” we all know — we know about.

How do you see the legacy?

DREW GILPIN FAUST: An important part of the legacy — and I would just like to reinforce what others were talking about with the importance of slavery and race — but another dimension of the legacy is the way in which the Civil War is an important moment in the history of warfare.

And it’s often called the first modern and the last old-fashioned war, because it involved a level and — of carnage and a scale that was a kind of harbinger of things to come in the 20th century. And so, we need to look at the Civil War in that way as well, and to understand the kinds of inhumanity and slaughter that were part of that war, where about 2 percent of the American population died.

That would be they equivalent of six million Americans today. Those are military deaths, not even including an estimate of civilian deaths. So, there’s a kind of understanding of what human beings are able to do to one another that is an essential part of really looking back at the meaning of the Civil War.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, some important insights.

And we thank you, all three, Drew Gilpin Faust, Edna Medford, and Walter Edgar. We thank you.

 

 

[Restorium2]

And this further comment about the previous;

Christopher Graves • 6 years ago

As usual since Robert MacNeil departed, we heard only one side of the controversies surrounding the Civil War. There are intellectuals who defend the older received view of the Civil War that took the South's account of the war more seriously. For example, Eugene Genovese, Thomas Dilorenzo,
Clyde Wilson or Donald Livingston could have been included in the discussion to make it more balanced as well as more interesting.

I think it is mistake to frame a discussion of the underlying reasons for the war as simply being exclusively slavery, states' rights, the tariff, etc. Rather, I believe a proper understanding of what grounded all of these disputes was a fundamental cleavage between the regions of the U.S. that dated back to the Founding. That primordial difference was articulated by two antagonists whose differing visions have competed for dominance throughout American history.

Thomas Jefferson argued for an agrarian culture and economy that emphasized an idyllic, harmonious social and political climate. A de-centralized, very limited government was most compatible with Jefferson's vision. Slavery was held by many who took up this view as essential to maintain this way of life as it had evolved in the American South. Of course, Jefferson and other Southerners did not see slavery as necessary to maintain this more personalistic order.

In contrast to Jefferson' s vision, Alexander Hamilton proposed a commercial, urbanized, industrial organization of society that depended on big business and banking that was to be presided over by a strong centralized government. Big Business and Big Government homogenized the differences between the regions to make the U.S. one nation. Hamilton's economic order was not as directly wedded to slavery.

Hamilton's view won out for some time. But there are those of us who still uphold the Jeffersonian vision and are in the process of challenging the dominant Hamiltonian order. Unless we come to understand and clearly discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each vision, we will never understand our history nor our current underlying differences.

[Restorium2]

I found the biography of Edmund Ruffin very interesting and providing a clear insight into the cause of the civil war.

Anyone interested should google him up and see how he rolled. He was one of many with the same ideals. 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

Wow, have enough yarn to make a sweater. 

If people sincerely cared about slavery as they claim, they would use every ounce of their energy for a topic that they could stop now. No one is talking about the 400 plus billion dollar slave trade and human trafficking going on right now and that is a current crime against humanity.  No one really cares about that though because it unfortunately doesn't fit their agenda. 

BBL for news on cannabis, still won't be responding to any straw man. Gonna watch History of the World Part1 and Life of Brian or maybe Blazing Saddles and LMAO.

 

 

[Scarlet_Begonias]

Nice to delete and repost. Where did the original unedited post go?