Classic Doonesbury (1976) by Garry Trudeau


Comments (45) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. leftwingpatriot

    leftwingpatriot said, over 1 year ago

    Getting free on a technicality.

  2. DavidHuieGreen

    DavidHuieGreen said, over 1 year ago

    Typo, perhaps?

  3. Salinasong

    Salinasong said, over 1 year ago

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

  4. jeffiekins

    jeffiekins said, over 1 year ago

    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.

  5. Yo, Teach!

    Yo, Teach! said, over 1 year ago

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

  6. jeffiekins

    jeffiekins said, over 1 year ago

    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.

  7. MiHorn

    MiHorn GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

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

  8. packratjohn

    packratjohn said, over 1 year ago

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

  9. montessoriteacher

    montessoriteacher said, over 1 year ago

    1976 Doonesbury, the bicentennial edition.

  10. felinefan55

    felinefan55 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    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.

  11. Mourdac

    Mourdac said, over 1 year ago

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

  12. MiHorn

    MiHorn GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago


    And that makes the comment better . . . how???

  13. packratjohn

    packratjohn said, over 1 year ago


    Make no mistake, and no assumption, I am merely the spelling police. If you don’t spell correctly, your point, such as it is, tends to get lost. I find a discussion hard to follow when I have to stumble through spelling and grammar errors. Or, as I like to say, “I am disappointment in yore grammers”.

  14. packratjohn

    packratjohn said, over 1 year ago

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

  15. DavidHuieGreen

    DavidHuieGreen said, over 1 year ago

    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.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (30).