Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for August 04, 2014

Getting free on a technicality.

Typo, perhaps?

A few of them wanted to include free blacks … and even women. Unfortunately not enough.

Sorry; I have to call BS. Very few had (what was then) the conventional view of slavery. But they felt it was most important to keep the Southern colonies along for the ride. So their strategy was that they could separate from England first, and when that was accomplished, they could work on getting rid of slavery. .Maybe it wasn’t the best choice they could have made, but it wasn’t from not wanting to. I know it’s very fashionable to rag on the founders, but if you read their private writings, or almost any (even slightly) even-handed history, the overwhelming impression is that their hearts were, almost all, in the right place. .And, yes, I know that many of them owned slaves. Most lived in places where it was illegal to free your slaves, and most did free their slaves in their wills, which was the only it could be done legally. Yes, they could have freed theirs illegally, but again, they felt they could only scoff at so many laws at a time..It’s certainly reasonable to second-guess their priorities and strategy, and to say they should have focused more, or earlier, on freeing the slaves, but it’s just beneath you to speak about them the way you did..Pick up a good book, and read some about that era. Here’s a suggestion: “Thomas Jefferson: In His Own Words” is a compilation of letters to world figures and friends. Since he never expected the letters to friends to be read by others, it offers a window into what, and how, he thought.

Actually, Elizabeth Freeman used this precise argument (written into the Massachusetts constitution) to sue for her freedom.

And, BTW, slavery was abolished, less than 80 years later, a blink in history’s eye. The wheels of history turn slowly. (I know what you’re thinking: how many more metaphors will this idiot come up with?) Things happen so quickly now that we can forget it wasn’t always so.

Yikes. Please read a history book. The civil war was not about taxes. And please take that swastika off your arm.

In your defense, I think you meant, “Aryan”.

1976 Doonesbury, the bicentennial edition.

I would wager that most Americans don’t know that a black man had the right to vote before a white (or black) woman. In a sense then it’s logical that we got a black (even though I still don’t get why he’s called that since his mom is white and he was mostly raised by his white grandparents) man for a president before a woman.

Britain, by contrast, abolished the slave trade in 1807 and slavery in 1833, a bit less bloodily than our method.

Or to quote Monty Python, “We don’t morally censure, we just want the money.”

They claimed it was about taxation without representation. They didn’t mind the taxes. They wanted the representation. They understood that the nobility were not noble or fit to rule over them nor was the royalty.

Good try, but you’ll never convince any of them that anything is not about taxes. When O’Reilly writes a book about Jesus and says he died for low taxes, that about sums it up. Not a one wants to support the country they profess to love. Unless that was Germany in ’33. Then taxes were probably just fine.

We would also do well to ask ourselves what conditions we tolerate today, with twinges of conscience, that in 20 or so years from now will be seen clearly to be morally abominable. Very few act on their moral principles when they will be regarded by their neighbors as simple idealist for doing so.

The humor in this particular strip, I think, comes from the contrast between how Nate actually feels about civil rights and how his descendants choose to remember his actions.

I always thought it was malarkey. Have you seen the movie “Imitation of Life”? She passed for white. I have a strong feeling that every one of us has that 1 drop somewhere in our history.

I wasn’t referring to the Depression but to the election of a Nazi government in ’33. This was a reference to the local troll (based on his one post and lack of engagement) talking about how wonderful it was that “all northern Arian MEN are created equal- and that still holds true today!”And how delighted he would have been to pay taxes to such a government.

What do you mean, “they”?

@KaffekupJudging by the strip, “they” refers to angry, white, Southern men.

You, of all people, should not only value correct English, but also not call people names, such as “troll” (whatever that means). Sorry, old chap, but I disagree with you very, very strongly. Proper use of the language is the first law of discussion, without which we are just throwing out words that can be interpreted any ole’ way, and frequently are. To call myself the spelling police was tongue in cheek, but I suppose I should have included a statement to that effect in order to avoid confusing folks. Sorry about that….

I like the one drop rule. It means I’m black (and Indian and jewish and celtic, of course) and you white people owe me an apology for what your ancestors did to my ancestors.Apologise with cash

Those who correct others against correcting others remind one of cannibals who eat their own kind.

No popular movement is ever about freedom for all.All have certain acts they do not want others free to commit:.offences against children, against spouses, against public safety — just to name a few.

“One cannot have both slavery and talk about freedom.”One can, if one is a hypocrite.