And you wonder?

section in opposition to slavery:

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE DEBATE OVER SLAVERY

When Thomas Jefferson included a passage attacking slavery in his draft of the Declaration of Independence it initiated the most intense debate among the delegates gathered at Philadelphia in the spring and early summer of 1776. Jefferson's passage on slavery was the most important section removed from the final document. It was replaced with a more ambiguous passage about King George's incitement of "domestic insurrections among us." Decades later Jefferson blamed the removal of the passage on delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Jefferson's original passage on slavery appears below.

But it was locked. Glad you did it here

He couldn't change it overnight by himself. And what he did and stood for would have hastened the end of slavery.

The Jefferson Memorial is here to stay.

to comprehend how, with all his intelligence and compassion, he could still own slaves.

I am not a product of those times, but still, the idea of "owning" a human being as a slave is so filthy disgusting wrong to me that it almost makes me ill.

WTF? How could such an intelligent. creative person own slaves? No matter how desperate a financial situation is, it's either your integrity or a lifetime of knowing you are a slave owning shithead.

Again, I'm not a product of those times, but "owning" another human being seems to me to be somethng that any decent person would know in their hearts was wrong.

And Jackson genocided as many Native Americans as he possibly could. His sense of law and justice pertained only to white people.

How could any of these people do these awful things?

Re-education for all.

Last edited Thu Jul 23, 2015, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)

His old speeches will have to be destroyed.

Full disclosure: I have four $2 bills in my wallet. I just counted.

Servers love them.

You asking who's name should replace
Jefferson/Jackson?

Isn't it obvious?

The biggest democratic fundraisers evah!
The Bill & Hillary Dinner
TaDone!

BTW, kudos to the NAACP,
and Connecticut Democratic party

Jackson I can see. But Jefferson is one of the Founding Fathers.



I am sure we can find something "wrong" with everyone. Including MLK.


But this is unnecessary, and takes away from real debate.

and nothing you find on MLK is that bad.

I'd like to see the racist murderer off the $20 bill. But Jefferson?

Thomas Jefferson??

Jefferson was the first President elected from the "Democratic-Republican" Party when it formed to challenge the Federalists, and Jackson was the first President of the current Democratic Party, which emerged from the fracturing of the Democrat-Republicans in 1824.

Stunning really.

We can only honor the purist of pure in the Democratic Party.

for being an embarrassing dumbass

Clock is ticking Nick-hopefully before the Nightly News

Thomas Jefferson! FFS!

The Wahhabi sect that was born in the same (18th) century as the two men -- Qatar has an al-Wahhab statue, perhaps another similarity as an 18th century figure (Jackson is better known for 19th century though) -- is about preventing idolatry, preventing "sin", etc. So them destroying structures or to make the point another way is they moved Muhammad's grave to an undisclosed location based on the idea no one can worship a grave if they don't know where it is this was after they desecrated his immediate families' grave. Something like taking someone's name off an event from the NAACP is different obviously because they find their conduct was objectionable & are against the glorification. These are just taking names off of fundraisers & dinners so it isn't even in the same league as that but it isn't like destroying or putting barriers around anything at all that might be lead to worshiping other gods but except the god whether or not they find it objectionable.

Like in one of the cables I was going through, there was a recent funeral for a Saudi prince. In one of the cables I see someone finding that objectionable because funerals anything at all. Praise & worship of people whether or not they not they would glorify because of the Wahhabi doctrine so it is a false equivalence that doesn't make the point well.

On the al-Wahhab statue was very odd to me because he was the guy that opposed the Hajj, statues, things and stuff so they put up a statue of him. Cult leaders generally don't believe the nonsense, just a tool to control & count money.

Money reminds though they if they found a sponsor (especially for a fundraising dinner) they would have removed the name. See RFK Stadium changed to FedEx Field.

Its gotten ridiculous and is just more divisive.

1930¿

This is what will make us laughing stocks of independents and invite scorn.

Every democratic candidate will be asked about it and they'll have to either embrace it (turning off many people) or oppose it (turning off radical wing of African Americans.)

Democrats just love to commit suicide.

The media, mainstream media in the US is very problematic but worry about what the media thinks or "independents" (I'm registered to vote D for primaries but mindset I don't care about parties but rather ideas -- I'm fond of the Radical Republicans more than Thomas Jefferson because of their ideas) is playing into their hands. Everything is disconnected & privatized to trace where any of this traces up to because whatever is decided to be sensationalized, focused on, and more important omitted. Whatever perceptions that follow will be biased or incorrect perceptions -- it is remarkable whatever story they focus on people find those subjects important but report on something the media ignores the people ignore. Also this is about fundraisers & dinners, voters won't care only the ones with money might but they don't care what something is named or whose face is on what.

After Barbara Jordan

Jackson did bring voting to the common man (or at least common for the time). You cannot destroy the parts of your heritage you don't like. Also, Jefferson did found much of the principles of our democracy.

What's the big deal? The Democratic Party has varied traditions.

I regret the removal of Jefferson, as the two sides of the family have reconciled. For a long time white descendents of TJ wouldn't let the black descendents of Sally Hemmings visit Monticello.

They saw the error of their ways and I believe tJefferson did too. Even in the creation of the USA, he said slavery was a monstrosity (or something like that) but it was stricken out of the Declaration of Independence. The plantation owners were the mulit-national corporations of the colonies in those days, and they exerted their brutal control.

It is why TJ also spoke harshly about corporations overcoming the power of the democratic government, saying they should be crushed and had NO allegiance to America.

He also that he said America would pay a heavy price for slavery as God would see that justice was done, if we did not tend to it ourselves. Yet he kept his slaves, and that is what is galling to POC. That and all that followed. If we are to live up to the dreams of equality, we must change.

This is a tiny thing. Black people as well as many others have seen the power of those words onequality and have fought harder for them than any other group. For it was their survival at stake and they have been the aggrieved party.

It's not like they are repealing the Constitution liek Teabaggers want to do, and take us back to the days of birthright giving one all the power in this country. We can live without the JJ dinner. That Texas calls it the Jeffersson Jordan Dinner is a good thing. It can go by a more generic name. My ancestors lived here through the time of these presidents. Our feelings are not hurt, there is nothing to fear and I have nothing to be offended about.

Gonna get rid of everything with his name on it?
People need to get e grip with this nonsense. What about all the other presidents and their bad acts? I guess we should just name dinners after puppies and kittens

I like your take on it.
Litmus tests for purity can get difficult in the light of history and the times others lived in.

extremes - ridiculous defined by reasonable people. They just like the attention. I believe most of them have been behaving like this since kindergarten. They were the kids who always took everything too far and ended up in the principal's office.

If you go based on the idea a slave can't say no Thomas Jefferson is largely considered a rapist slave owner. Andrew Jackson I would strongly support taking off the 20 and anything else. He is in George Bush hall of fame of terrible Presidents. "Trail of Tears" and devastated the economy. His whole reputation hangs from the war of 1812.

The Nullification Crisis is NEVER discussed with the Cherokee Removal, yet both were connected. The Railroads had just started and would NOT have been possible to move Northern troops to the South without the Railroad AND the increased number of Steamboats on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers that existed in 1860s (Keel boats were still being used on both rivers for some cargo as late as Jackson's Presidency, the steam boats did not completely replaced them till the 1850s).

Thus Jackson had to rely on the Militia of Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee to put down South Carolina and its Nullification move. These same three states also were the states that had Cherokee lands in them. Thus the three states were willing to support Jackson against South Caroline ONLY if they obtain the lands of the Cherokees. Now, Jackson was perfectly willing to remove the Cherokees and the other "Civilized" Tribes but he did not have support for such a move if any resistance was offered, and the Cherokees were willing to do so, till the Militia of those three states showed up and stole the lands.

Jackson was also important it doing away with the Second Bank of the US, he thus made US Currency the sole property of the Federal Treasury, where it stayed till the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.

Jackson also has the reputation of the last President who NOT only balanced the budget BUT paid of the National Debt. In many ways they are people who hate him for that more then anything else, for how can you make money if the Federal Government is NOT borrowing any?

AS a whole, Jackson was good for the US, he ended a lot of banks hold on the common man and was the most Anti-Bank President we have ever had (Saying that he and his successor, Martin Van Buren, were both tied in with the then growing banks of New York City,

Side note: Technically the Indians were NOT removed till Jackson was out of office. Jackson blamed the Cherokees for waiting so long. The Discovery of gold in the lands of the Cherokees made the push to remove them even more forceful, for the US was suffering a coin shortage at the time period, and the desire to have gold, so it would be sent to Europe to buy goods American wanted was high. In many ways, the Discovery of gold in the lands of the Cherokees doomed the Cherokees. The plan was to move them in three shipments, but the states involved demanded one movement so the supplies for one third of the Cherokees ended up being the supplies for the whole tribe. Greed wins out almost every time.

I read the book "American Lion" but oddly can remember very little of it -- I forgot I even read it until this topic came up which I understand there is more I need to look into for complete knowledge good or bad which is why generally I'm against glorifying with focus simply on the good but omitting the bad or justifying or excusing it.

On economics I'm fairly educated on but when it comes to banks and the creating money out of thin air thing that they do and that creating debt out of thin air which is all handed electronically pretty much but at a basic level I don't have issues with money storage or lending (at fair & for reasonable reasons) rather than pages of fine print and the way it complete is now.

The 20th century economics I would need an intro course or study more into as there is a difference in currency issues (which is the more complex area for example oil has a lot to do with the value of currency and there is a currency value strategy for both sides why US sells their treasury debt holdings to China & China buying them though not sure in what way or Japan moving into 1st place as top purchaser of US debt and TPP has currency manipulation as a goal but I would need a phD to understand it)

So isn't there a particular reason why there was such a crucial demand for gold and a "coin shortage"? Though am aware the recessions from up top were British banks. This was going on parallel to the US problems at the same time. A lesson on "globalization".


CONFRONTING THE MODERN GLOBALIZING ECONOMY, 1798 TO 1858

ON THE MARGINS OF THE WORLD SYSTEM, 1858 TO 1918

<snip>

During the first half of the nineteenth century roughly 75 percent of Ottoman trade was still domestic, so the Ottoman economy was shielded considerably from the market forces of the outside world. The Ottomans began to enter into the European financial system and borrow significant amounts of money from European lenders starting in the 1850s, a process initially facilitated by European powers who wished to acquire more leverage over the Ottomans to guard against the southward expansion of Russia, as well as to promote sales of their exports. This helped create the conditions for the outbreak of the Crimean War, and involved European financial interests in the Ottoman economy to secure loan repayment. By the 1870s European bankers had formed public debt commissions in Egypt and in Istanbul to control local economic policy to ensure the repayment of debts owed them.

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=8802f7574361206751af6f99f59e8fdf&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|CX3447600140&userGroupName=seat24826&jsid=74065f6d9aed7ce55027062767d1a049

So while my impressions were he didn't create the problems but caused them to worsen particular with "coin shortages". Blamed them for "waiting so long" when it seems the waiting was due to increase in demand for gold and silver due to something to do something to do with "specie" can't recall if it was "specie removal" or the name of what the action was but by accounts was a contributing factor to the "Panic of 1937" or "recession".

I read the book "American Lion" but oddly can remember very little of it -- I forgot I even read it until this topic came up which I understand there is more I need to look into for complete knowledge good or bad which is why generally I'm against glorifying with focus simply on the good but omitting the bad or justifying or excusing it.

On economics I'm fairly educated on but when it comes to banks and the creating money out of thin air thing that they do and that creating debt out of thin air which is all handed electronically pretty much but at a basic level I don't have issues with money storage or lending (at fair & for reasonable reasons) rather than pages of fine print and the way it complete is now.

The 20th century economics I would need an intro course or study more into as there is a difference in currency issues (which is the more complex area for example oil has a lot to do with the value of currency and there is a currency value strategy for both sides why US sells their treasury debt holdings to China & China buying them though not sure in what way or Japan moving into 1st place as top purchaser of US debt and TPP has currency manipulation as a goal but I would need a phD to understand it)

So isn't there a particular reason why there was such a crucial demand for gold and a "coin shortage"? Though am aware the recessions from up top were British banks. This was going on parallel to the US problems at the same time. A lesson on "globalization".


CONFRONTING THE MODERN GLOBALIZING ECONOMY, 1798 TO 1858

ON THE MARGINS OF THE WORLD SYSTEM, 1858 TO 1918

<snip>

During the first half of the nineteenth century roughly 75 percent of Ottoman trade was still domestic, so the Ottoman economy was shielded considerably from the market forces of the outside world. The Ottomans began to enter into the European financial system and borrow significant amounts of money from European lenders starting in the 1850s, a process initially facilitated by European powers who wished to acquire more leverage over the Ottomans to guard against the southward expansion of Russia, as well as to promote sales of their exports. This helped create the conditions for the outbreak of the Crimean War, and involved European financial interests in the Ottoman economy to secure loan repayment. By the 1870s European bankers had formed public debt commissions in Egypt and in Istanbul to control local economic policy to ensure the repayment of debts owed them.

http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/whic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=8802f7574361206751af6f99f59e8fdf&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE|CX3447600140&userGroupName=seat24826&jsid=74065f6d9aed7ce55027062767d1a049

So while my impressions were he didn't create the problems but caused them to worsen particular with "coin shortages". Blamed them for "waiting so long" when it seems the waiting was due to increase in demand for gold and silver due to something to do something to do with "specie" can't recall if it was "specie removal" or the name of what the action was but by accounts was a contributing factor to the "Panic of 1937" or "recession".

I'll concede he was controversial and that I need to research more into, especially on economic matters though I think you highlighted that Republicans were mostly always the big business party as railroad contracts this or that and "Manifest Destiny" and other various things so they needed a growing government and government help but now that everything is expanded government is now too big and they want them to go away but still give them the contracts & a subsidy.

What took so long? Using the names of slave owners to raise money could easily be taken as a signal that the Democratic Party secretly likes slavery.

Now that is done at least in a few places. Progress comes too hard, but it comes.

Previous discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=463620

Other LBN link and discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141155917

Should we rename the Capital and take his picture off the dollar bill?

But in this case it is merely a political party -- the Democrats -- who are willing and able to understand that it is important that official functions of the party send a clear message that Black Lives Matter.

Okay then. So should Democrats never mention Washington with favor in a speech? How about the other slave-owning Founders? Should we stop saying anything good about them, too?

Or would that be "extreme"?

Dropping their names from a fundraising dinner is already "extreme."

There are so many who are extremely upset that the names have merely been changed.

I am finding the exposition of the conservatives to be rather weird.

Jefferson is the technical founder of the Democratic Party, but he owned slaves AND in his later years pointed out raising slaves to be sold was the most profitable business a Virginian could get into.

Jackson, while attacking the banks, also arranged for the removal of all Native Americans East of the Mississippi River.

Until 1896, you really did not have any Democratic Leaders, the closest was Stephen Douglas of the Lincoln/Douglas debate. Douglas's problem is he supported the South in its decision to expand slavery based on popular vote (He died in 1861, thus you do not hear of him in the Civil War period).

In 1896, Williams Jennings Bryan came onto the scene, he supported Income Tax, Labor Rights, restrictions on Corporations. The New Deal was called "Bryanism without Bryan" but Herbert Hoover, and in many ways Hoover was right. Today, Bryan is best know for the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925 for he supported the concept that when it came to public education, local school boards should have the right to decide what should be and what should not be taught. Bryan opposed teaching in public schools, the theory of Human Evolution for it was to tied in with Social Darwinism (Bryan was a religious person, but when it came to the Scoope's trial he kept religion out, it was Darrow who brought in the Bible and
Religion, it was Bryan who cited Darwin and his book).

Other people have attacked FDR, for his imprisonment of the Japanese Americans during WWII. FDR also refused to do anything REAL in regards to Civil Rights. This came up in the 1948 election, when the Dixiecrat candidate was asked why they opposed Truman, while FDR had run on the same Civil Rights Platform, the response was, paraphrased "But Truman Actually means it". What desegregation that took place under FDR occurred do to the intervention of Elanor Roosevelt more then anything FDR did.

Truman served almost two terms. He dropped the Atomic Bomb on Japan (and then refused to issue the Order dropping a third bomb when it became available when several preachers attack the atomic bomb as a killer of woman and children. This all became moot with the Japanese Surrender but the order was on his desk before the planned bombing and he ordered it NOT to be done. Truman also had to operate under the Red Scare and kicked several people out of the Government due to the Red Scare. Truman also sent into Korea

JFK is often mentioned as the name of the person such get togethers should be held under. The problem was he handling of Cuba and the Bay of Pigs debacle. JFK was President during the height of the Civil Rights Movement, but nothing Significant came out of his Presidency (The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act came out under LBJ not JFK). JFK was the first President to cut the top income tax rate from 90 % to 70%. JFK plans on Vietnam is open to debate, but he did nothing significant to reduce American Involvement, his plans to bring back advisers for Christmas had been done before and then sent them right back. His Civil Rights Record is mix, he did Federalized National Guard and kept them in their Barracks during Civil Rights protests but that is about all.

LBJ. LBJ is always attack for Vietnam, despite his Great Society Programs, student collage grants etc.

Carter is still alive and I have objection to anything being named after anyone who is still alive.

Thus who do we name these parties after? Someone who said the right things but was never in a position to do actual change (Martin Luther King for Example). We do need to name these things after someone, someone who had the power AND the will to get them done. That limits us to people in actual power, such as Jefferson, Jackson, FDR, JFK and LBJ. Who would you pick?

after all. What to change the name to is the big q.

The Democratic Party of the post Civil War Era, was a "me to" party, it was for the same things the Republicans were for, even when it came to Civil Rights (Technically the GOP were for Civil Rights and the Democrats wanted Federal Civil Rights ended, when the laws that helped the Freed Slaves in the South were seen as could be used by Workers in the North, those Civil Rights laws were gutted by the GOP controlled Supreme Court). The big difference was the Tariff. The Democrats, being based mostly in the South with its export of Cotton and imports of goods, wanted Tariff at the point it brought in the maximum revenue to the Federal Government. The GOP wanted even HIGHER tariffs to protect they allies in the growing industrial production areas of the economy. Thus you had, what today would look weird, the Democrats getting elected, cutting the Tariff, revenue going up do to increase imports and the Democrats using the increase taxes to help their supporters. The GOP getting elected, raising those Taxes but so high that revenue fell, thus causing them to cut the Federal Budget (One year, they decided NOT to pay the troops, thus the troops went one year without pay, they still had to serve and were entitled to their pay, but they had to wait to the next year, a non-election year, for Congress to raise taxes (by cutting the Tariff) to pay them).

In the 1890s the Democratic Party started to form what is not the progressive wing of the party. They rallied around William Jennings Bryan for he was their best speaker. AS a member of Congress, Bryan gave an excellent speech on why the Income Tax would be good (and supported an Income Tax till it was passed in 1912). If you ever read the speech, notice he mentions many of the same arguments used to attack raising the Income tax today, and tears then apart.

http://www.starkman.com/hippo/history/bryan.shtml

His cross of Gold Speech was famous, for it attacked the concept that the US dollar has to be tied in with the price of Gold. The GOP maintained that the US dollar had to equal $20 to an ounce of gold, and that to mint Silver Dollars would undermined that price (When the US Coin System was last revised in 1857, the price of Silver in a Silver Dollar was just under a Dollar, but the price of Gold, in terms of what you could buy with Gold, had dropped do to the massive gold finds in California in the early 1850s. Very little new gold was found till 1898, but a lot of Silver was, thus after 1857 the price of gold in terms of what you could buy with the golf varied drastically. During the Civil War the price of Gold in terms of Dollars skyrocketed till 1864, then Congress tried to control its price. This attempt varied but in the post Civil War era Congress made it a policy to spent its taxes to get the price of Dollars down to $20 an ounce of Gold. Congress did succeed in this by the early 1870s and the result was the "Long Depression" of the late 1800s.

Today there is a strict definition of what is a Recession, for example the Great Depression was NOT one long Recession, but a series of Recessions that the economy never quite got out of before the next recession hit. The same with the "Long Depression", by the modern definition it was was 1873 till 1879, but the economy did not really start up again till after 1896 and the post 1896 boom is attributed to "Gold Inflation" as new Gold was introduced into the world economy from new Gold Fields, in South Africa, Australia and Alaska.

People knew we needed inflation after 1873, a little inflation is generally good for the economy. Thus the 1850s was a decade of massive expansion of the US, powered in many ways by the massive influx of Gold from California that forced down the price of gold and thus the what a dollar could buy. A similar situation hit the world after 1896 with the new influx of gold. Between 1873 and 1896 the amount of new gold found was minor, less then enough to cause the inflation needed. People were afraid of the massive inflation of the Civil War Era, so people did not believe in paper money, but Silver had long been a form of money and given the massive finds of Silver after the 1850s, the price of Silver in terms of Gold had dropped. Thus in 1857 the Silver in a Silver Dollar was just under a Dollar, by 1900 it was worth 55 cents. Thus people in the US wanted the Federal Government to mint Silver Dollars, so you would have dollar inflation. People with money opposed such minting for it would reduce the value of their dollars in terms of gold.

By the 1890s the situation was getting bad, thus the progressive wing of the Democratic Party embraced the Silver Concept and ran Bryan in 1896. He lost (and one of his enemies noted that there were strong evidence he lost by fraud in addition be being outspent almost 10 to 1) but the progressive wing had formed a solid group around him and stayed loyal to him till he died (and loyal to his concepts well into the 1930s, FDR was NOT a Bryanite, but the Democrats in Congress were, thus FDR ended up veto things those Bryanites wanted at the same time embraced many of the things Bryan had Advocated. My favorite quote on the New Deal was from Herbert Hoover, paraphrased, "The New Deal is Bryanism without Bryan".

Now, many people today will oppose a Dinner in Bryan's name do to his participation in the Scoops Monkey Trial. My Comment on that trial do NOT go by the Play "Inherit the Wind" for the authors took liberties with history, for the play was an attack on McCarthy not Bryan. Things NOT in the play, Bryan offered to pay the "Fine" at the dinner both he and the Defendant attended. Scoops himself told people this, but Scoops then told Bryan the payment of the fine had been arranged even before he agreed to say he had taught Human Evolution. Second, the big ending where the Bryan Character in the play demands jail time, did not occur in the trial. He is a variation of a McCarthy Speech during the Red Scare. In the Trial, the underlying law had no jail sentence, just a fine. Furthermore, Bryan had opposed adding the fine to the law. Bryan had written the law adopted by Tennessee, but he never but any punishment on his proposed law. The reason for that was he said teachers are professionals and will obey the law and thus no punishment was needed. Butler, the Tennessee state representative who added the fine, thought otherwise, and when Bryan heard about the punishment wrote a letter to the Tennessee Legislature against adding such a fine.

In many ways Bryan wanted people to talk about the issues involved and thus he supported the trial and was willing to pay the fine as long as the issue would be discussed. The sad fact is rather then debate the issues involved, people just ignored them and left them unaddressed for decades. Something Bryan opposed, but was the result not of the Trial, but of School Boards and other people to discuss the issues involved (including who should decided what is taught in public schools, "Experts" or the student's parents? That was the issue as far as Bryan was concerned, not evolution and before you attack him, do you think the Chicago School of economics should be taught in the Public Schools or Keynesian Economics? to give a more modern twist on the issue).

For more on the Scoops Money Trial (There is a lot of nonsense on the net about the trial, mostly by people whose impression of the trial is from the play not the actual trial):

http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tennesse.html

Bryan's actual closing statement at the end of the Trial:

Or didn't forcibly remove the Cherokee to Oklahoma?

Gosh you must not require much thinking to draw your conclusions.

England soon? Many of those founders owned slaves, and certainly most of them did not attempt to undue slavery when they formed this country and its government. If we have to erase them and their deeds we should probably renounce our Independence and our form of government.