NationStates Jolt Archive

Who was your favorite? Which one would you want leading us today?

I go with Thomas Jefferson. As a devout Libertarian, I find myself agreeing with Jefferson on almost everything from gun rights, separation of church and state, and the role of courts. The man was a great political thinker who was well ahead of his time, and one who has been ignored for the last twenty years to our own detriment.

Thomas Jefferson. I disagree with him on a few minor issues, but that's probably more because of the massive technical advancements between then and now.

Madison. He led the way of separation of church and state. Plus he also wrote this little known document, called the United States Constitution.

Who was your favorite?

They were all horrible people, so none of the above.

Which one would you want leading us today?

Again, horrible, horrible people with antiquated ideas and despicable stances and characters (then again, so are Obama and Bush, but not all that 18th century as these geezers). Leading "us" today? I'd bloody well like Ulrika Eleonora back before any of them, and Ulrika Eleonora is not exactly the pinnacle of leadership, if you're not familiar.

Jefferson and Franklin. Basically for the "leave me alone, and I will leave you alone" theory of freedom (I know it's more complex than that).

As for leading us today, I think that's a kind of pointless combination of revisionism and nostalgia. None of them could lead today. They were great people in their time, but wouldn't be today.

Hamilton knew his way around the economy, being the first Secretary of the Treasury.

And Jefferson got rid of the Navy. I wouldn't want my security to be compromised like that. Jefferson thought it was a waste of money...

Who was your favorite? Which one would you want leading us today?

I go with Thomas Jefferson. As a devout Libertarian, I find myself agreeing with Jefferson on almost everything from gun rights, separation of church and state, and the role of courts. The man was a great political thinker who was well ahead of his time, and one who has been ignored for the last twenty years to our own detriment.

I'm curious as to (1) what you think Jefferson's view was regarding the role of the courts, (2) why you would agree with it, and (3) how it's been ignored in the last 20 years.

They were all horrible people, so none of the above.



Again, horrible, horrible people with antiquated ideas and despicable stances and characters (then again, so are Obama and Bush, but not all that 18th century as these geezers). Leading "us" today? I'd bloody well like Ulrika Eleonora back before any of them, and Ulrika Eleonora is not exactly the pinnacle of leadership, if you're not familiar.

You must be lovely to meet in person.:rolleyes:

They were all horrible people, so none of the above.

Again, horrible, horrible people with antiquated ideas and despicable stances and characters (then again, so are Obama and Bush, but not all that 18th century as these geezers). Leading "us" today? I'd bloody well like Ulrika Eleonora back before any of them, and Ulrika Eleonora is not exactly the pinnacle of leadership, if you're not familiar.

LOL. So fucking predictable.

I'm curious as to (1) what you think Jefferson's view was regarding the role of the courts, (2) why you would agree with it, and (3) how it's been ignored in the last 20 years.

To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

Jefferson's main argument is that judges are given too much power. He was heavily against the ruling in Marbury v. Madison.

As for my 3rd point, I wasn't just talking about the courts. I was referring to an abandonment of all of his political ideals. I was referring to courts taking too much power, religion being bound to state affairs, and an overall growth in the size of government.

lol, No one's picked Washington yet...

LOL. So fucking predictable.

Well, you might like slave-owners among the other, wretched things they were (predictable, there again, for you as someone from the USA to gloss over the harshness of the actual reality in lieu of a national propaganda epos), I don't particularly much.

Not Jefferson, please.

I spent several years of my career working at one of Thomas Jefferson's homes (Poplar Forest, not Monticello), and the more I learned about him, the less I respected him.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

Except for the slaves, obviously.

And before anyone tries to defend him for being no more hypocritical on that point than many other southern 'founding fathers', let's not forget that Washington freed all of his slaves (admittedly on Martha's death, not his own), while Jefferson freed precisely four - all of whom could pass as white.

He was aware of the hyprocrisy, and never dealt with it to his own satisfaction, becoming increasingly obtuse and hypocritical over time.

And from his one book, Notes on the State of Virginia, from the section on crime, I give you:

It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. -- To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour.

You must be lovely to meet in person.

You should be so lucky.

Well, you might like slave-owners among the other, wretched things they were (predictable, there again, for you as someone from the USA to gloss over the harshness of the actual reality in lieu of a national propaganda epos), I don't particularly much.

Did I say you were completely wrong? Nope. Just completely predictable. :wink:

LOL. So fucking predictable.

Now I remember why hes on ignore.


Anyway, Hamilton. He wanted a king:p

I'm not American, but I'm not sure I'd want the founding fathers leading the US today; as others have pointed out times have changed, but there's one more point I'd like to mention:

"This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free. - George Carlin

They were the product of their times, folks. Enlightened enough to see equality, but not so enlightened as to see it in any other skin tone but their own, in most cases. I don't think Jefferson or anyone else needs justification or to be excused of their faults. Everyone has them, and while it's convenient to judge someone from 200+ years ago on today's standards, it's not usually very relevant or even valuable.

Take the English teacher who insisted that Shakespeare was misogynist. True? Technically. Relevant? Not remotely.

If America wanted a zombie president it would have elected McCain*. No to bringing back people from the dead! Down with this sort of thing!

*Because lets face it, when McCain inevitably died in office, you'd rather resurrect him even in zombie form than have let Palin take over.

Poor George Washington. Nobody voted for him. I thought he'd get plenty of votes, so I went with my other favorite, Jefferson.

Poor George Washington. Nobody voted for him. I thought he'd get plenty of votes, so I went with my other favorite, Jefferson.

Washington wasn't a great President. He was a great man and a great general.

If America wanted a zombie president it would have elected McCain*. No to bringing back people from the dead! Down with this sort of thing!

*Because lets face it, when McCain inevitably died in office, you'd rather resurrect him even in zombie form than have let Palin take over.
I dunno, for some of the dumb things she said there were equivalent things expressed by Bush...

They were the product of their times, folks. Enlightened enough to see equality, but not so enlightened as to see it in any other skin tone but their own, in most cases. I don't think Jefferson or anyone else needs justification or to be excused of their faults. Everyone has them, and while it's convenient to judge someone from 200+ years ago on today's standards, it's not usually very relevant or even valuable.

Take the English teacher who insisted that Shakespeare was misogynist. True? Technically. Relevant? Not remotely.

I think it's relevant that people who are lauded for a declaration of equality went on to found a country whose economy was based on slavery. Perhaps even ironic.

It's supposed to be universal. Otherwise it's no better than the aristocratic systems it intended to supersede! Replacing one prejudice with another is obviously idiotic and hypocritical, I don't see why we can't judge them on that basis?

I dunno, for some of the dumb things she said there were equivalent things expressed by Bush...She's more qualified than the other candidates were. She was the only one with Executive experience. Did you know that the President is part of the Executive branch?

Now I remember why hes on ignore.


Anyway, Hamilton. He wanted a king:p

I don't know if Hamilton really wanted it. I always figured he was merely playing devil's advocate to force a compromise during the convention. Especially since his writings for The Federalist don't show me a man who wanted a monarch.

I think it's relevant that people who are lauded for a declaration of equality went on to found a country whose economy was based on slavery. Perhaps even ironic.

It's supposed to be universal. Otherwise it's no better than the aristocratic systems it intended to supersede! Replacing one prejudice with another is obviously idiotic and hypocritical, I don't see why we can't judge them on that basis?

Because they'd just gotten the notion into their heads that class didn't make anyone more or less deserving of equal treatment, and even that was an envelope-pusher for the times. People of color just weren't yet seen as the same as whites. No sea-change in human perceptions of equality has EVER happened quickly. Look how long it took to get away from the notion of royalty.

I don't see how you CAN judge them to today's standards, knowing what was standard then. Does that excuse their hypocrisy? Not at all, but it is akin to blaming people for inefficiency in manufacturing before the invention of the assembly line, or blaming people for poor sanitation before germ theory became known.

No, it's like blaming people for inefficiency in manufacturing when they HAVE an assembly line, but don't use it because they've always made stuff by hand so why change?

But enough of metaphors!

The list of rights and so forth is a laudable document, but I'm not so sure that in itself makes the authors worthy of praise. You can't really ignore all their other faults....

She's more qualified than the other candidates were. She was the only one with Executive experience. Did you know that the President is part of the Executive branch?

these posts are always good for a laugh.:) When the anti-intellectual religious nut morons form their own country, palin will be perfectly qualified to run it

I choose none of those slave owning hypocrites

for goodness sake what is wrong with you yanks and your "founding fathers"?

as for the poll I'm British so naturally you can all suffer under the tyranny of George III and pay your bloody taxes

Did I say you were completely wrong? Nope. Just completely predictable. :wink:

So you're saying I was predictable in being right. It is my habit, after all. "LOL" all you want at it then. You do "LOL" at the truth, because... well, you have to, to maintain your grasp on your views.

No, it's like blaming people for inefficiency in manufacturing when they HAVE an assembly line, but don't use it because they've always made stuff by hand so why change?

But enough of metaphors!

The list of rights and so forth is a laudable document, but I'm not so sure that in itself makes the authors worthy of praise. You can't really ignore all their other faults....

You can if they could never have been perceived as faults in their day.

You must be lovely to meet in person.:rolleyes:

It's better just to ignore him. He never has anything positive to say.

It's better just to ignore him. He never has anything positive to say.

hes a doctor *da dum tish*

Washington wasn't a great President. He was a great man and a great general.

However, he was the first, which is important. Why? Because of the enormous pressure. Pretty much everything he did while in office had not been done before, basically had to be made up on the fly.

I would say, though, that the most important thing he did was step down.

It's Tom Paine all the way for me.

I don't know if Hamilton really wanted it. I always figured he was merely playing devil's advocate to force a compromise during the convention. Especially since his writings for The Federalist don't show me a man who wanted a monarch.

His writings in the federalist papers can be translated as:

"What we really need is a king, but since I cant get that, this is the next best thing..."


I also like Adams. He was an athiest, his wife was one of the first feminists, and he was a loud, obnoxious, prick.

I can relate.

Again, horrible, horrible people with antiquated ideas and despicable stances and characters (then again, so are Obama and Bush, but not all that 18th century as these geezers). Leading "us" today? I'd bloody well like Ulrika Eleonora back before any of them, and Ulrika Eleonora is not exactly the pinnacle of leadership, if you're not familiar.

But pretty much everyone in the 18th century was like this, it's rather meaningless to judge people by today's standards. It's more appropriate to judge them based on how progressive they were in contrast to the cultural values at that time.

Of all of them, I prefer Franklin. He invented the Franklin stove; he was the first postmaster general; he created created the first public lending library in America and the first fire department in Philadelphia, he was a diplomat and was key in securing French aid against the British (which we pretty shamefully never paid back nor even really were grateful for), statesman, philosopher, scientist, and satirist, he created the lightning rod and the bifocal glasses....

All in all, a very smart guy. His family relationships were far from perfect, but no one's a saint.

Hamilton. Hands down. I'd venture to say that his was the greatest economic mind this country has ever seen.

Not to mention The Federalist Papers were pretty badass. I got to know about Hamilton and his ideals through a mock Constitutional Convention. I never knew that Hamilton viewed the English political system as superior to all others.

for goodness sake what is wrong with you yanks and your "founding fathers"?

as for the poll I'm British so naturally you can all suffer under the tyranny of George III and pay your bloody taxes

Most Northern cities in England (ie Manchester, Preston, Hull) went unrepresented in Parliament, yet were still taxed. When the colonists were complaining about the rights of Englishmen, they were complaining for the right to be Southerners. No-one gives a damn about us Northern folk. :(

Most Northern cities in England (ie Manchester, Preston, Hull) went unrepresented in Parliament, yet were still taxed. When the colonists were complaining about the rights of Englishmen, they were complaining for the right to be Southerners. No-one gives a damn about us Northern folk. :(

That's because it's so grim up there!

But pretty much everyone in the 18th century was like this, it's rather meaningless to judge people by today's standards. It's more appropriate to judge them based on how progressive they were in contrast to the cultural values at that time.

This, this, oh and by the way, this.

That's because it's so grim up there!

I'll have you know that Lancashire is God's Own County.

Of all of them, I prefer Franklin. He invented the Franklin stove; he was the first postmaster general; he created created the first public lending library in America and the first fire department in Philadelphia, he was a diplomat and was key in securing French aid against the British (which we pretty shamefully never paid back nor even really were grateful for), statesman, philosopher, scientist, and satirist, he created the lightning rod and the bifocal glasses....

All in all, a very smart guy. His family relationships were far from perfect, but no one's a saint.
Agreed.

Though I also give props to Washington. A lot of his presidency was setting up the presidency and finding out how it worked, but it should be noted that a lot of what was accomplished was because he lent himself to it.

But pretty much everyone in the 18th century was like this, it's rather meaningless to judge people by today's standards. It's more appropriate to judge them based on how progressive they were in contrast to the cultural values at that time.

"Which one would you want leading us today?"

The question is not whom one would want as a leader then, but whom would one want as a leader now. It is stupid not to judge them by today's standards when the question is about today and even contains the word "today".

I also like Adams. He was an athiest, his wife was one of the first feminists, and he was a loud, obnoxious, prick.

I can relate.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe Samuel Adams was the loud obnoxious prick. John Adams, his brother, was the little, quiet, nerdy one with the feminist wife, Abigail. I'm not sure which of them was the non-religious one.

I picked Franklin as my favorite, because he's one of my favorite human beings in the world. As imperfect as he was, I firmly believe that a lot of life would be improved if we would all try to be just a little more like Ben.

But would I want him in charge now? Not sure. I don't like to pick a new leader from among the founders, because to me it would be breaking up the team. They all did their parts to create the US, and I have a strong feeling they all fulfilled their potential in that way.

Muravyets, I'm afraid you're mistaken. It was John who was "obnoxious and disliked," though he was married to Abigail. I've just finished reading A Great Improvisation, which describes the diplomatic mission to France that Franklin, Adams, and later Jefferson (with others) undertook.

Washington wasn't a great President. He was a great man and a great general.

Not true. Almost the exact opposite, actually. While he wasn't a terrible general, he was subpar when compared to his British counterparts. Many battlefield mistakes he made were atrocious, several inexcusable considering his experience and rank.

He was, however, a great man and leader, and (granted, disputedly) our greatest President. He brought the infant American economy out of the extreme turmoil left over from the Revolution and turned it into a powerhouse (when compared to our size, population, and the times, of course). He was more modest than all other Presidents after him combined, and set the precedent for the office for the next nearly 250 years. Obviously, a horrible president.

We need more men (and/or women) like Washington in Washington.

Muravyets, I'm afraid you're mistaken. It was John who was "obnoxious and disliked," though he was married to Abigail. I've just finished reading A Great Improvisation, which describes the diplomatic mission to France that Franklin, Adams, and later Jefferson (with others) undertook.
After a brief comparative google of John Adams and Sam Adams, I learn I'm wrong on two points:

1) They were both considered obnoxious but in different ways, and

2) They were cousins, not brothers.

Oh, well. I picked Franklin. ;)

I think that a better question would be, if someone of the same caliber as one of the Founding Fathers were to come along today (meaning with today's ideas about equality and such), firstly would they run for office and secondly would they be elected? I ask this because it seems like today that the parties don't particularly care about the quality of their candidates and are content with giving us the best of the worst to pick from.

After a brief comparative google of John Adams and Sam Adams, I learn I'm wrong on two points:

1) They were both considered obnoxious but in different ways, and

2) They were cousins, not brothers
At least Sam Adams has beer named after him. ;)

Mmm the idolisation of slave-owners. Nice.

Mmm the idolisation of slave-owners. Nice.

Of for fuck's sake. ANYone capable of making, or at least recording, the dominant history of the time was a slave-owner. It's like looking back and saying "those plague sufferers had it coming -- they didn't bathe regularly."

Also, I don't think respecting one's nation's past is the same as idolization. I don't see anyone making these men into idols on this thread yet. Respect for accomplishments, yes. Idolization, no.

Jefferson was part Welsh.

QED.



Of for fuck's sake. ANYone capable of making, or at least recording, the dominant history of the time in the USA was a slave-owner. It's like looking back and saying "those plague sufferers had it coming -- they didn't bathe regularly."


fixed

Of for fuck's sake. ANYone capable of making, or at least recording, the dominant history of the time was a slave-owner. It's like looking back and saying "those plague sufferers had it coming -- they didn't bathe regularly."

Also, I don't think respecting one's nation's past is the same as idolization. I don't see anyone making these men into idols on this thread yet. Respect for accomplishments, yes. Idolization, no.

Thomas Paine wasn't. He should be on the list, after all it was his pamphlet Common Sense that inspired a great deal of Americans, including George Washington, to fight for independence instead of greater political rights within the Empire.

William Daniels.

"1776," anyone?

Re: The founding fathers owning slaves, there's a nice song where Rutledge lays the smackdown on the founding fathers for their hypocrisy.

William Daniels.

"1776," anyone?

Re: The founding fathers owning slaves, there's a nice song where Rutledge lays the smackdown on the founding fathers for their hypocrisy.
Indeed. Molasses to Rum. Which is why Jefferson had to strike the entire paragraph bitching out George III for allowing and encouraging the slave trade. The south would have walked out. Great musical which actually used Adam's letters to and from his wife for a basis -- but doesn't portray Adams as NEARLY obnoxious enough, and may have played a little fast and loose with a bit of the history.

Of for fuck's sake. ANYone capable of making, or at least recording, the dominant history of the time was a slave-owner. It's like looking back and saying "those plague sufferers had it coming -- they didn't bathe regularly."

Not necessarily. John Adams never owned slaves. Benjamin Franklin freed his slaves and become president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

Not necessarily. John Adams never owned slaves. Benjamin Franklin freed his slaves and become president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

Yep. Adams = The Shit.

"Which one would you want leading us today?"

The question is not whom one would want as a leader then, but whom would one want as a leader now. It is stupid not to judge them by today's standards when the question is about today and even contains the word "today".

Fair enough, but you gave the same answer to "which one was your favourite?", so it's still pointless to talk of their relative 'horribleness', surely some of them were more progressive than others.

Fair enough, but you gave the same answer to "which one was your favourite?", so it's still pointless to talk of their relative 'horribleness', surely some of them were more progressive than others.

Just ignore Fass. The fact that none of them were Swedish is enough to earn his ire and disdain for them.

I'll have you know that Lancashire is God's Own County.

That's because he's the only one who wants it! Thank God for his infinite mercy.

Yorkshire craps on you from a great height too.

Jefferson was part Welsh.

QED.



fixed

No, not fixed. George III was English, IIRC. And you're saying nobody owned slaves in all of Europe? Asia? The Middle East? Come on.

Not necessarily. John Adams never owned slaves. Benjamin Franklin freed his slaves and become president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

Exceptions. Excellent ones, but exceptions, nonetheless.

Of all of them, I prefer Franklin. He invented the Franklin stove; he was the first postmaster general; he created created the first public lending library in America and the first fire department in Philadelphia, he was a diplomat and was key in securing French aid against the British (which we pretty shamefully never paid back nor even really were grateful for), statesman, philosopher, scientist, and satirist, he created the lightning rod and the bifocal glasses....

All in all, a very smart guy. His family relationships were far from perfect, but no one's a saint.

Franklin would be a great guy to have a beer with.

The man's vices were many, but they are what make him such a great bar buddy.

Oh and lastly:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Rainn_Wilson.jpg

I don't care what Jim says. I am 99.9% sure that is not the real Ben Franklin.

Yep. Adams = The Shit.

His son was a major abolitionist. He ran for the House after losing the 1828 campaign (which was the dirtiest in history) to Jakckson. He used his House seat to call for the end of slavery and died of a stroke suffered on the House floor.

Just ignore Fass. The fact that none of them were Swedish is enough to earn his ire and disdain for them.

I've taken heed of your advice and reading the thread is now instantly more enjoyable.

I've taken heed of your advice and reading the thread is now instantly more enjoyable.

I do have that kind of power.

As an aside, you from Chicagoland? Just noticed your sig contained records for our sports teams.

I do have that kind of power.

As an aside, you from Chicagoland? Just noticed your sig contained records for our sports teams.

I'm from NW Indiana, you?

I'm from NW Indiana, you?

Northwestern Chicago suburbs (currently at Northern Illinois University).

Not true. Almost the exact opposite, actually. While he wasn't a terrible general, he was subpar when compared to his British counterparts. Many battlefield mistakes he made were atrocious, several inexcusable considering his experience and rank.

He was, however, a great man and leader, and (granted, disputedly) our greatest President. He brought the infant American economy out of the extreme turmoil left over from the Revolution and turned it into a powerhouse (when compared to our size, population, and the times, of course). He was more modest than all other Presidents after him combined, and set the precedent for the office for the next nearly 250 years. Obviously, a horrible president.

We need more men (and/or women) like Washington in Washington.

He was a bad tactician, but a pretty decent strategist, as a general. He understood that the most important thing was not winning battles, but keeping the force strong enough to fight another day. He understood that if the American army won a battle the way that the British won Bunker Hill (which was actually fought on a different hill), it would lose the war.

No, not fixed. George III was English, IIRC. And you're saying nobody owned slaves in all of Europe? Asia? The Middle East? Come on.


No, I'm saying that slave owning was not universal at the time, and that outside of the USA it was very possible to be important and not a slave owner.

I forget what nationality George III was, we did have a liking for being ruled by Germans around that time, so anything's possible.

Northwestern Chicago suburbs (currently at Northern Illinois University).

I'm from NW Indiana, you?

You two might as well be in the same state. :-p

No, I'm saying that slave owning was not universal at the time, and that outside of the USA it was very possible to be important and not a slave owner.

I forget what nationality George III was, we did have a liking for being ruled by Germans around that time, so anything's possible.

And that was because of the structure of the American economy, not because America was somehow behind times or morally inferior. There was also already a growing abolitionist movement in the North at the time.

I'm pretty sure George III was German, House of Hanover.

Agreed.

Though I also give props to Washington. A lot of his presidency was setting up the presidency and finding out how it worked, but it should be noted that a lot of what was accomplished was because he lent himself to it.

I picked Franklin, because he's an OG, but Washington was pretty damn important. There was no precedent for anything, as he was the one setting all the precedents, and he knew it. He did remarkably well under an enormous amount of pressure.

Sam Adams, he is one of the guys who helped bring about the Revolution.

Sam Adams, he is one of the guys who helped bring about the Revolution.

They all pretty much helped to bring about the revolution in some form or another.

Sam Adams, he is one of the guys who helped bring about the Revolution.

You just reminded me, but Winter Lager and the Winter Classics pack are now out. I need to pick up a case of each.

And that was because of the structure of the American economy, not because America was somehow behind times or morally inferior. There was also already a growing abolitionist movement in the North at the time.

Not necessarily. I'd suggest racism was far more prevalent and embedded in the US than other places in the world, and hence lasted longer.

The British Empire's economy after all was largely built on the backs of slave labour, but slavery was banned in the UK before the American revolution, and banned throughout the empire in the early 19th century.

They were all horrible people, so none of the above.



Again, horrible, horrible people with antiquated ideas and despicable stances and characters (then again, so are Obama and Bush, You only dislike Obama because you are a racist.

Not necessarily. I'd suggest racism was far more prevalent and embedded in the US than other places in the world, and hence lasted longer.

The British Empire's economy after all was largely built on the backs of slave labour, but slavery was banned in the UK before the American revolution, and banned throughout the empire in the early 19th century.

It was 30ish years prior and that was during the period of industrialization in the Britain.
Also the south represented 1/3 the population of the Union at the time and about 1/2 the Us economy.
the British holdings in the Caribbean were much smaller both in population and economic importance by the time of the British slavery ban.

You only dislike Obama because you are a racist.

What?:confused:

You only dislike Obama because you are a racist.

You ever break a leg leaping to such conclusions?

No, I'm saying that slave owning was not universal at the time, and that outside of the USA it was very possible to be important and not a slave owner.

I forget what nationality George III was, we did have a liking for being ruled by Germans around that time, so anything's possible.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it was the norm.

Not necessarily. I'd suggest racism was far more prevalent and embedded in the US than other places in the world, and hence lasted longer.

The British Empire's economy after all was largely built on the backs of slave labour, but slavery was banned in the UK before the American revolution, and banned throughout the empire in the early 19th century.

Is that why apartheid lasted so long, because the US was respon-- oh.

Madison. Not as a a leader as he was a mediocre President. I would want him around just to hear him repeat over and over "That is not what I meant or that is not what that means!"

Then again if we brought them back, would they like what they saw.....well as to what the government and the people have become......

Not necessarily. I'd suggest racism was far more prevalent and embedded in the US than other places in the world, and hence lasted longer.

The British Empire's economy after all was largely built on the backs of slave labour, but slavery was banned in the UK before the American revolution, and banned throughout the empire in the early 19th century.

Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act)
Slavery was officially abolished in the majority of the British Empire on 1 August 1834.[2] In practical terms, however, only slaves below the age of six were freed as all slaves over the age of six were redesignated as "apprentices".
As a notable exception to the rest of the British Empire, the Act did not "extend to any of the Territories in the Possession of the East India Company, or to the Island of Ceylon, or to the Island of Saint Helena."

Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act)

Ssssh. People cant go on preaching their superior enlightenment when you make them look at the facts.

Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act)

Convenient.

"You're all free! Except you."

Of all of them, I prefer Franklin. He invented the Franklin stove; he was the first postmaster general; he created created the first public lending library in America and the first fire department in Philadelphia, he was a diplomat and was key in securing French aid against the British (which we pretty shamefully never paid back nor even really were grateful for), statesman, philosopher, scientist, and satirist, he created the lightning rod and the bifocal glasses....

All in all, a very smart guy. His family relationships were far from perfect, but no one's a saint.

What about WW I and WW II and Vietnam....

I'd say we're even with the French.

As for me, I'm a Jefferson supporter.

What about WW I and WW II and Vietnam....

I'd say we're even with the French.

As for me, I'm a Jefferson supporter.

Its not paying them back when we dont show up till half (or all) the country is conquered and we only show up when we get attacked.

I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it was the norm.


Of for fuck's sake. ANYone capable of making, or at least recording, the dominant history of the time was a slave-owner.

I put it to you that many people were capable of, and did, making and recording history without being a slave owner.


Is that why apartheid lasted so long, because the US was respon-- oh.

If you like I'll revise the statement to say 'than most of the rest of the world'.

I put it to you that many people were capable of, and did, making and recording history without being a slave owner.



If you like I'll revise the statement to say 'than most of the rest of the world'.

The point is, it wasn't unheard of, and was an expectation in many parts of the world.

Its not paying them back when we dont show up till half (or all) the country is conquered and we only show up when we get attacked.

and when did the French show up for the American Revolution?

You're also forgetting that Vietnam was a French war, but of course with them being our allies, we had to get involved too. The French pulled out and stuck us with the bill.

So yea....we're even.

Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act)

Nice selective quoting there, why don't we look at the bit that says

Apprentices would continue to serve their former owners for a period of time after the abolition of slavery, though the length of time they served depended on which of the three classes of apprentice they were

Essentially meaning that the act took about 4-6 years to come into force, while the amount of time 'apprentices' could be forced to work was restricted 45 hours a week.

and when did the French show up for the American Revolution?


When we negotiated for them to.

You're also forgetting that Vietnam was a French war, but of course with them being our allies, we had to get involved too. The French pulled out and stuck us with the bill.


The french werent involved in vietnam when we were.


So yea....we're even.

Its not about being "even". You dont keep score with friends.

and when did the French show up for the American Revolution?

You're also forgetting that Vietnam was a French war, but of course with them being our allies, we had to get involved too. The French pulled out and stuck us with the bill.

So yea....we're even.

Right. The French forced us to escalate. Give me a break.

The point is, it wasn't unheard of, and was an expectation in many parts of the world.

That's a different point entirely.

That's a different point entirely.

Of course it is. I was exaggerating a while back, a US-centric point of view, I admit, and I apologize. Point is, slavery wasn't universally regarded as the evil it (far too much) later came to be, so judging owners at that time as people utterly unworthy of respect is revisionist and pointless.

When we negotiated for them to.

The American Revolutionary War was 1776–1783. So it went on for seven years. The French got involved in 1778, two years in. Also, the French wern't helping us out of the goodness of their heart, they were helping us because they got screwed out of some land in the Americas through the 1763 Treaty of Paris. Plus at the time the British and the French hated one another. So the Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The french werent involved in vietnam when we were.

Umm...Vietnam was a French colony, read about the French involvement here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Exit_of_the_French.2C_1950.E2.80.931954)

Its not about being "even". You dont keep score with friends.

Of course friendship is all about who's even with who. Where have you been?

and when did the French show up for the American Revolution?
Are you JOKING?
They financed much of it... they sent arms, uniforms, and men.... The Marquis de Lafayette, anyone? We were just about done before the aid arrived.

And when we refused to, you know, pay them back... well, it's no wonder they weren't too impressed with us.

Nice selective quoting there, why don't we look at the bit that says



Essentially meaning that the act took about 4-6 years to come into force, while the amount of time 'apprentices' could be forced to work was restricted 45 hours a week.

Uh, yeah. So being an "apprentice" isn't as bad as being a "slave." What's your point? Britain freed slaves in England proper when such persons were largely house servants. They freed slaves in much of the British empire when Britain had entered the industrial revolution and could exploit labor via wage-slavery instead. The Northern states followed a similar progression. The South was highly dependent on slavery because of its agrarian economy. Perhaps you recall that the South supplied cotton to Britain and the rest of Europe? And because of British industry's reliance on this cotton, Britain was prepared to enter the American Civil War on the side of the South?

Are you JOKING?
They financed much of it... they sent arms, uniforms, and men.... The Marquis de Lafayette, anyone? We were just about done before the aid arrived.

And when we refused to, you know, pay them back... well, it's no wonder they weren't too impressed with us.

We eventually paid them back, with our own soldiers, and our own equipment, and uniforms, etc.

and when did the French show up for the American Revolution?

Oh tell me you're kidding. Please, god, let him be kidding. Does the name "La Fayette" ring a bell? Battle of Chesapeake Bay? Yorktown? Anything? Anything at all?

Uh, yeah. So being an "apprentice" isn't as bad as being a "slave." What's your point?
No it isn't. One example being the restriction I mentioned about how long apprentices could be forced to work. And the fact that apprenticeships expired after 4-6 years. If you prefer then date the British abolishing slavery in 1840.


Britain freed slaves in England proper when such persons were largely house servants. They freed slaves in much of the British empire when Britain had entered the industrial revolution and could exploit labor via wage-slavery instead. The Northern states followed a similar progression. The South was highly dependent on slavery because of its agrarian economy. Perhaps you recall that the South supplied cotton to Britain and the rest of Europe? And because of British industry's reliance on this cotton, Britain was prepared to enter the American Civil War on the side of the South?
Britain was never really close to entering the war, nothing more than posturing really.

Out of interest are you suggesting that banning the slave trade and then slavery altogether was in Britain's economic interests?

Oh tell me you're kidding. Please, god, let him be kidding.
I don't think he's kidding.

But it makes me feel better about forgetting that both Adamses were annoying and how they were related to each other.

I don't think he's kidding.

But it makes me feel better about forgetting that both Adamses were annoying and how they were related to each other.

JQA was the son of JA right?

Oh tell me you're kidding. Please, god, let him be kidding. Does the name "La Fayette" ring a bell? Battle of Chesapeake Bay? Yorktown? Anything? Anything at all?

This is Wilgrove. Malleability combined with the most convenient sources of information. You're honestly surprised? You?

JQA was the son of JA right?

That's the way I heard it.

Britain was never really close to entering the war, nothing more than posturing really.No, but relying on a slave state to supply the raw materials for your industry is not what I'd call overwhelming moral superiority.

Out of interest are you suggesting that banning the slave trade and then slavery altogether was in Britain's economic interests?
No, I'm suggesting that an overwhelming economic imperative prevented the South from banning slavery, while the North and Britain could do so without wrecking their economies.

JQA was the son of JA right?
Yes, but I was confusing JA and SA. (Crap, they're almost as bad as the Bachs and the Brueghels.)

Yes, but I was confusing JA and SA. (Crap, they're almost as bad as the Bachs and the Brueghels.)

Sam Adams was John Adams cousin or something was he not?

Sam Adams was John Adams cousin or something was he not?
Yes, cousin. I mistakenly referred to them as brothers. :$

I'mma pick... I'mma pick... Washington. Yup.
:p
I just like the dude's name.

Its not about being "even". You dont keep score with friends.

Quoted for Truth.

No it isn't. One example being the restriction I mentioned about how long apprentices could be forced to work. And the fact that apprenticeships expired after 4-6 years. If you prefer then date the British abolishing slavery in 1840.


Britain was never really close to entering the war, nothing more than posturing really.

Out of interest are you suggesting that banning the slave trade and then slavery altogether was in Britain's economic interests?

Indeed. Britain sort of hoped they'd win just because they still kinda wanted to get back at us. Ideologically, however, they were much closer to the North than the South, and even then they realized this. Prince Albert was also very very much opposed to becoming involved militarily in the war.

Another thing to consider, is they saw how much potential the manufacturing base of the North had, and knew that if they did enter the war and the North won anyway, it would be unpleasant for Canada.

Indeed. Britain sort of hoped they'd win just because they still kinda wanted to get back at us. Ideologically, however, they were much closer to the North than the South, and even then they realized this. Prince Albert was also very very much opposed to becoming involved militarily in the war.

Another thing to consider, is they saw how much potential the manufacturing base of the North had, and knew that if they did enter the war and the North won anyway, it would be unpleasant for Canada.

The British aristocracy considered themselves culturally closer to the genteel South than the puritan North. But Britain and the North were sociologically similar and industrialized.

Depending on one's definition of "Founding Father", Federal Farmer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Farmer), whoever he was.

edit: Also, Samuel Bryan.

The British aristocracy considered themselves culturally closer to the genteel South than the puritan North. But Britain and the North were sociologically similar and industrialized.

True. And even in a less democratic nation, war is hard to start and sustain without popular support. I think the British Government of the time deserves some credit for not entering the war militarily.

I'mma pick... I'mma pick... Washington. Yup.
:p
I just like the dude's name.

I heard that Washington saved some children..

Cerean;14205643']I heard that Washington saved the children..

But not the British children...

i wouldn't trust any of them. although i suppose 'poor richard' might be alright.

look beyond the fluff kids are still brainwashed about them, dig a little deeper, and while they are credited with, and in some cases deserve credit for, certain real milestones, to a man, they were as much consumate politicians in the context of their own day, as those we have typically seen since.

combined of ego and wealth, much as politicians in more contemporarily indipendent nations. and those of every idiology as well.

no. behind their larger then life images, are mere and often petty humans.

not meaning to disparage them unduely as any more so then their equivelants of today, but certainly for the most part, by no means less.

i wouldn't trust any of them. although i suppose 'poor richard' might be alright.

look beyond the fluff kids are still brainwashed about them, dig a little deeper, and while they are credited with, and in some cases deserve credit for, certain real milestones, to a man, they were as much consumate politicians in the context of their own day, as those we have typically seen since.

combined of ego and wealth, much as politicians in more contemporarily indipendent nations. and those of every idiology as well.

no. behind their larger then life images, are mere and often petty humans.

not meaning to disparage them unduely as any more so then their equivelants of today, but certainly for the most part, by no means less.

A lot of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that politics being dirty is a recent phenomenon.

It of course, is anything but.

Politics being dirty is certainly old. The 1828 Presidential Election is by far the dirtiest in American history. As dirty as recent ones have been, nothing can beat the dirt thrown in 1828.

Hamilton. Six words: "It is good to be king!"

Of course it is. I was exaggerating a while back, a US-centric point of view, I admit, and I apologize. Point is, slavery wasn't universally regarded as the evil it (far too much) later came to be, so judging owners at that time as people utterly unworthy of respect is revisionist and pointless.

Not universally no. But it was certainly a belief held by a significant number of people (I believe examples of founding fathers who didn't own slaves have been cited). They would almost certainly have been aware of such ideas and apparently rejected them and were happy with signing their names under 'all men are created equal' and holding on to their slaves, and they can certainly be judged on that.

Of course it is. I was exaggerating a while back, a US-centric point of view, I admit, and I apologize. Point is, slavery wasn't universally regarded as the evil it (far too much) later came to be, so judging owners at that time as people utterly unworthy of respect is revisionist and pointless.Actually, American slave law was pretty ass backwards for the time. In fact, the British were busy freeing slaves during the Revolutionary War, slavery being a practice the King abhorred.

Cerean;14205643']I heard that Washington saved some children..I just like his name. ...That's about it. :p

Ben Franklin. 'Cause he's awesome like that.

Aaron Burr

Ben Franklin. 'Cause he's awesome like that.

Aaron Burr

I just like his name. ...That's about it. :p

Hamilton. Six words: "It is good to be king!"
No long, complicated reasons as to why we think some dead guy is cool! Win.

kinda like em all.

but to be our president now? none. they lived in another time period. the country's needs were different then and some of you may be surprised by their rulings should they assume office now.