Thomas Jefferson
C05705DA@wuvmd
Therefore, Thomas grew up with slavery as being the norm. One of
Thomas' early professions was farming over a thousand acres I beleive,
which required slaves. He took good care of his slaves, though I AM
NOT promoting or approve of the slavery institution. Thomas Jefferson
found himself in a delima. How to get rid of slavery without going
broke? He finally went for broke and freed his slaves. He considered
this to be one of his four great acheivemnets. Thomas disliked slavery
much more than Abraham Lincoln did.
Chris Brewster
Thomas [Jefferson] disliked slavery much more than
Abraham Lincoln did.
This statement is ridiculous: unsupported, unmeasurable, untrue.
Chris Brewster
c...@cray.com
SCHUYJUANNAH
>this to be one of his four great acheivemnets. Thomas disliked slavery
>much more than Abraham Lincoln did.
Probably because Tom was a slave owner and Abe was not (to my knowledge).
If a person owned slaves and he wanted to free them, but couldn't, he
*would* dislike it quite alot!
Alex Petrushko
Care to elaborate on your so far unfounded, unsupported, untrue
statement? I have read both Fawn Brodie's book and various other sources
dealing with Jefferson's attitude toward slavery and I don't find the
original statement wholly wrong. Maybe you can disprove that?
Alex.
Jim Mann
> In article <CB.92Oc...@tamarack13.timbuk> c...@tamarack13.timbuk
(Chris Brewster) writes:
> >Someone at Washington University writes:
> >
> > Thomas [Jefferson] disliked slavery much more than
> > Abraham Lincoln did.
> >
> >This statement is ridiculous: unsupported, unmeasurable, untrue.
> >
> statement? I have read both Fawn Brodie's book and various other
sources
> dealing with Jefferson's attitude toward slavery and I don't find
the
> original statement wholly wrong. Maybe you can disprove that?
>
I don't think the question is one of whether Jefferson disliked
slavery: he certainly disliked it and agonized over the fact that
he freed slaves (which he said he wanted to free, but couldn't
think of a way to do so in which they would be free but able to
support themselves). The debate is over the statement that
"Jefferson hated slavery much more than Lincoln did." THAT'S the
statement that is unsupported, and, for that matter, probably
not that interesting: both men hated slavery. What difference does
it make which one hated it more?
--
Jim Mann
Stratus Computer jm...@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Gary Livingston Hewitt
[much included stuff deleted]
>
>I don't think the question is one of whether Jefferson disliked
>slavery: he certainly disliked it and agonized over the fact that
>he freed slaves (which he said he wanted to free, but couldn't
>think of a way to do so in which they would be free but able to
>support themselves). The debate is over the statement that
>"Jefferson hated slavery much more than Lincoln did." THAT'S the
>statement that is unsupported, and, for that matter, probably
>not that interesting: both men hated slavery. What difference does
>it make which one hated it more?
>
Probably more like, "in which they would be free and HE (TJ) would
be able to support HIMself." After a long lifetime of (I think)
sincere anti-slavery talk, Jefferson only freed a handful of slaves (all
from the Hemings family, notably).... He was perpetually in debt, and in
the long run, he thought that standing by his debts was more important than
freeing the slaves. I think that says something about the degree of TJs
hatred of slavery (or that, in the "plagiarized" Lockean formulation,
"property" was more important than "liberty.")
Of course, Lincoln was never faced with that kind of decision -- though
in 1862, knowing that the Emancipation Proc. would lose him a whole lot
of support in the North, he still went on with it....
GARY
--
++====+========+==========+=======+===++
|| | Gary| L. Hewitt| | || HELP! I've been imprisoned
|| glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du || by my .signature! HELP!
++====+========+==========+=======+===++
Clayton Cramer
I've read that he only freed three slaves -- the rest were sold to
cover his substantial debts.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Lesson learned from Gov. Wilson's signing of AB 2601: if you don't get
your way, have a riot. Next time, Gov. Wilson will cower appropriately.
maurice
glhe...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
> {...} After a long lifetime of (I think)
>sincere anti-slavery talk, Jefferson only freed a handful of slaves (all
>from the Hemings family, notably).... He was perpetually in debt, and in
>the long run, he thought that standing by his debts was more important than
>freeing the slaves. I think that says something about the degree of TJs
>hatred of slavery (or that, in the "plagiarized" Lockean formulation,
>"property" was more important than "liberty.")
so long as he was in debt. They were considered assets, after all.
maurice
Maurice Forrester
mjfo...@suvm.syr.edu
Vadim S. Kaplunovsky
> [much included stuff deleted]
> >
> be able to support HIMself." After a long lifetime of (I think)
> sincere anti-slavery talk, Jefferson only freed a handful of slaves (all
> from the Hemings family, notably).... He was perpetually in debt, and in
> the long run, he thought that standing by his debts was more important than
> freeing the slaves. I think that says something about the degree of TJs
> hatred of slavery (or that, in the "plagiarized" Lockean formulation,
> "property" was more important than "liberty.")
>
In 1770 he peruaded the Virginia assembly to *abolish* slavery
(presumably in some gradual way, but I do not have the details).
Alas, king George the III vetoed the abolition, and the slavery
stayed on. When 6 years later Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration
of Independence:
"He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary
for the public good.",
the abolistion of slavery was "the most wholesome and necessary" law
he had in mind.
When later the US constitution was framed, Jefferson was away in Paris,
but other of like mind agreed to the compromise on the slavery issue
believing that the 13 States will abolish slavery on their own accord.
Unfortunately, the only states that did so were the states where slavery
wasn't common anyway (eg., the New York state, technically a slave state
until 1794, but never having many slaves or any good use for them).
In Virginia, despite Jefferson's best efforts, slavery stayed on:-(.
As to why Thomas Jefferson didn't simply free his own slaves, the answer
has to do with an unfortunate fact of echonomics: A plantation worked
by hired free labor cannot compete with plantations worked by slaves.
If *every* plantner has to hire free labor, they still can earn a good
profit and stay in business, but if you alone have this expence while
your competitors all own slaves, you cannot survive. I believe, TJ
reasoned that loosing *some* property in a good cause is OK, but commiting
economic suicide is quite another, so he held on to his slaves as long
as he had to. In his will, he let them all go free, or at least as many
of them as he legally could, given the debts of his estate.
BTW, freeing the slaves in his will was entirely consistent with Jefferson's
overall philosophy of property. TJ believed in the natural right of a man
to keep a property he earned, but he did not consider inheritance as a right.
In his opinion, the appalling poverty in pre-revolutionary France, which
should have been a rich country, was caused by maldistribution of the real
property, which in turn was caused by a concentrating system of inheritance.
His prescription for avoiding such a calamity in America was to change
the inheritance laws to make them spread the wealth around. From this point
of view, abolishing slavery by freeing slaves on the owner's demise made
perfectly good sense, and that is exactly what he did himself.
> Of course, Lincoln was never faced with that kind of decision -- though
> in 1862, knowing that the Emancipation Proc. would lose him a whole lot
> of support in the North, he still went on with it....
>
In 1862, Lincoln proclamed Emansipations of slaves in the *rebel* states,
but not in the slave states that stayed in the Union (Maryland and a few
others). In those states, slaves remained slaves until after the CW.
-- Vadim.
**********************************************************************
Vadim S. Kaplunovsky, | #include <std_disclaimer.h>
Assistant Professor of Physics, |
University of Texas at Austin. | My English isn't THAT bad,
va...@bolvan.ph.utexas.edu | but my typing stinks:-(.
Gary Livingston Hewitt
>In article <1992Oct8.1...@Princeton.EDU> glhe...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(Gary Livingston Hewitt) writes:
>> [much included stuff deleted]
>> >
>> Probably more like, "in which they would be free and HE (TJ) would
>> be able to support HIMself." After a long lifetime of (I think)
>> sincere anti-slavery talk, Jefferson only freed a handful of slaves (all
>> from the Hemings family, notably).... He was perpetually in debt, and in
>> the long run, he thought that standing by his debts was more important than
>> freeing the slaves. I think that says something about the degree of TJs
>> hatred of slavery (or that, in the "plagiarized" Lockean formulation,
>> "property" was more important than "liberty.")
>>
>As to why Thomas Jefferson didn't simply free his own slaves, the answer
>has to do with an unfortunate fact of echonomics: A plantation worked
>by hired free labor cannot compete with plantations worked by slaves.
>If *every* plantner has to hire free labor, they still can earn a good
>profit and stay in business, but if you alone have this expence while
>your competitors all own slaves, you cannot survive. I believe, TJ
>reasoned that loosing *some* property in a good cause is OK, but commiting
>economic suicide is quite another, so he held on to his slaves as long
>as he had to. In his will, he let them all go free, or at least as many
>of them as he legally could, given the debts of his estate.
Again, these were the 4 or 5 Heming slaves. My sense is that
Jefferson's inability to *personally* liberate his slaves (i.e., by
himself, not by governmental action) tells a lot about where his
antislavery sentiment came from. He did not have the "free-labor" or
liberal capitalist antipathy to slavery that developed in the North by
the 1830s -- he did not envision his plantations being worked by free
men for a wage. Rather he envisioned free men owning their own land,
working it for themselves -- an agrarian utopia where no man was
dependent (and where women, children, etc., were dependent upon that
independent man).
Now, Jefferson (to my mind) never resolved the tension between his
agrarian vision of what the US should be -- this vision informed the
Louisiana Purchase, as well as his contributions to the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787, banning slavery in what's now IL, MI, OH (some), IN,
WI -- between that agrarian vision and the realities of plantation
agriculture, where a large, dependent labor force was necessary. The
idea of free men working for wages horrified him. The idea of slavery
disgusted him. Where a planter fit into this world, was difficult to
figure out. What was the role of a landed quasi-aristocrat in a
republic of free and independent men?
And TJ, of course, had the same problems figuring out what the role of
freed slaves was to be as most other American politicians did --
convinced in the inferiority of blacks, TJ could never see them as
honest independent agrarians, but the servility of slavery offended him
too.
Gary
James Davis Nicoll
I have occasionally wonder if, had the Brits not alienated the
13 Colonies in the 18th Century, whether the end of slavery in the
1830s would have precipitated a rebellion along the same lines as the
one which divided the USA thirty years later. I suspect a nation who
independence was precipitated by the 'need' to preserve slavery would
be a rather less pleasant nation than the one resulting from 1776.
James Nicoll
Gary Livingston Hewitt
I guess we would have had the "Confederate States of America" just a few
years earlier.... My sense is that that "nation" would have consisted
of Georgia/South Carolina, along with whatever extra colonies would have
cropped up to their West; the North and its satellites to its west
probbably would have become something like the Canadian Confederation
(if not part of it). Thus the long American dream of unity with Canada
would have come true...
And this year would mark the first time that the CSA had a team in the
Canadian Hockey League World Series.... :-)
Gary
John McCarthy
19th century, maybe after 1820. Up to that time, Southerners were
still willing to talk about sending the slaves back to Africa.
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
James Davis Nicoll
>In article <BwDLA...@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>
>>13 Colonies in the 18th Century, whether the end of slavery in the
>>1830s would have precipitated a rebellion along the same lines as the
>>one which divided the USA thirty years later. I suspect a nation who
>>independence was precipitated by the 'need' to preserve slavery would
>>be a rather less pleasant nation than the one resulting from 1776.
>
>I guess we would have had the "Confederate States of America" just a few
>years earlier.... My sense is that that "nation" would have consisted
>of Georgia/South Carolina, along with whatever extra colonies would have
>cropped up to their West; the North and its satellites to its west
>probbably would have become something like the Canadian Confederation
>(if not part of it). Thus the long American dream of unity with Canada
>would have come true...
>
>And this year would mark the first time that the CSA had a team in the
>Canadian Hockey League World Series.... :-)
The name 'Canada' might have been reserved for the French bits,
excluding New Brunswick. No idea how Quebec would have felt if the initial
Anglo/Francophone population ratio had been even more in favour of the
Anglos...
James Nicoll
Charles E Thorne
I would suspect that if the revolution had not happened in the 18th century,
thus there being no U.S.A., the Southern Colonies very well may have rebelled
had the British attempted to end slavery in the South. On the other hand, the
British very well may have treated the Southern Colonies the way they treated
India and Africa in the 19th century.
The Industrial revolution would probably still have occurred in the North
in the 19th century and British taxation of the Northern "Colonies" would
probably still have led to a secession of the North.
Charlie
Jon Livesey
|>
|> I would suspect that if the revolution had not happened in the 18th
|> century, thus there being no U.S.A., the Southern Colonies very well
|> may have rebelled had the British attempted to end slavery in the
|> South.
Well, actually, the British didn't just abolish slavery. They
bought out the slave owners, so this may not be as likely as you
think.
|> On the other hand, the British very well may have treated the
|> Southern Colonies the way they treated India and Africa in the
|> 19th century.
Why not the way they treated Canada, New Zealand and Australia?
jon.
Michael Goldman
>I believe the ideological consolidation of slavery occurred in the
>19th century, maybe after 1820. Up to that time, Southerners were
>still willing to talk about sending the slaves back to Africa.
My understanding was that the invention of the cotton gin
(intended by Eli Whitney to eliminate the tedious work
that seemed to require slaves and thus eliminate the
economic basis for slavery) made cotton growing so
much more profitable that it increased the viability of
the slave plantations. Before that, I've read there were
more abolition societies in the South than in the North.
I believe Whitney received no money from his cotton gin
invention but became wealthy from manufacturing guns,
which served eventually to free the slaves.
There's a lesson there, somewhere.
- Michael Goldman
--
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
Disclaimer: All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
<sun!sono!miklg> or [mi...@acuson.com]
Clayton Cramer
Probably. But would the cotton gin have come to fruition without
independence? At least part of Eli Whitney's hopes were to become
wealthy from his invention. He did not, because of widespread
patent infringement. But it does make you wonder if he would have
simply not pursued the idea, without that carrot of wealth to
urge him on.
Without the cotton gin, slavery would have been smaller, less
financially remunerative, and less likely to have created the
system of justifications that strengthened Southern political
resolve about the subject from the 1820s onward.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Anthrophagy: an alternative lifestyle for the 90s!
James Davis Nicoll
>In article <BwDLA...@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>
>> I have occasionally wonder if, had the Brits not alienated the
>> 13 Colonies in the 18th Century, whether the end of slavery in the
>> 1830s would have precipitated a rebellion along the same lines as the
>> one which divided the USA thirty years later. I suspect a nation who
>> independence was precipitated by the 'need' to preserve slavery would
>> be a rather less pleasant nation than the one resulting from 1776.
>>
>> James Nicoll
>
>Probably. But would the cotton gin have come to fruition without
>independence? At least part of Eli Whitney's hopes were to become
>wealthy from his invention. He did not, because of widespread
>patent infringement. But it does make you wonder if he would have
>simply not pursued the idea, without that carrot of wealth to
>urge him on.
There's a link in your chain of logic which is deducable
from the structure of the rest of your argument: that it was harder
to make money from inventions in the 13 Colonies before Independence
than after. Perhaps you might support this?
There appears to have been an industrial revolution in England
about this time, so perhaps the British Empire did not entirely extinguish
inovation amongst its subjects.
James Nicoll
Charles E Thorne
>In article <12...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>In article <BwDLA...@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
>>> I have occasionally wonder if, had the Brits not alienated the
>>> 13 Colonies in the 18th Century, whether the end of slavery in the
>>> 1830s would have precipitated a rebellion along the same lines as the
>>> one which divided the USA thirty years later. I suspect a nation who
>>> independence was precipitated by the 'need' to preserve slavery would
>>> be a rather less pleasant nation than the one resulting from 1776.
>>Probably. But would the cotton gin have come to fruition without
>>independence? At least part of Eli Whitney's hopes were to become
>>wealthy from his invention. He did not, because of widespread
>>patent infringement. But it does make you wonder if he would have
>>simply not pursued the idea, without that carrot of wealth to
>>urge him on.
> There's a link in your chain of logic which is deducable
>from the structure of the rest of your argument: that it was harder
>to make money from inventions in the 13 Colonies before Independence
>than after. Perhaps you might support this?
> There appears to have been an industrial revolution in England
>about this time, so perhaps the British Empire did not entirely extinguish
>inovation amongst its subjects.
It did, however, seriously limit the spread of that innovation. When the
cotton mills were established in Massachusetts in the early 19th century,
the process needed to be pirated from Britain, as neither the technology
(including the people containing the technology) nor the equipment could
be exported.
One of the significant proposals in the U.S. Constitution was that the
Federal government should establish and maintain and patent office to
protect inventors.
Charlie
Bill Hyde
|> In article <BwDLA...@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
|> >
|> > I have occasionally wonder if, had the Brits not alienated the
|> > 13 Colonies in the 18th Century, whether the end of slavery in the
|> > 1830s would have precipitated a rebellion along the same lines as the
|> > one which divided the USA thirty years later. I suspect a nation who
|> > independence was precipitated by the 'need' to preserve slavery would
|> > be a rather less pleasant nation than the one resulting from 1776.
|> >
|> > James Nicoll
|>
|> Probably. But would the cotton gin have come to fruition without
|> independence? At least part of Eli Whitney's hopes were to become
|> wealthy from his invention. He did not, because of widespread
|> patent infringement. But it does make you wonder if he would have
|> simply not pursued the idea, without that carrot of wealth to
|> urge him on.
Perhaps you could expand on this. People could, and did,
get rich both in the colonies and in the U.K. itself. I don't
see that Whitney would have been more likely to resign himself
to a life of (relative) poverty under a colonial administration.
Bill Hyde
Department of Oceanography
Dalhousie University,
Halifax, Nova Scotia
hy...@Ice.ATM.Dal.Ca or hyde@dalac
Jon Livesey
That looks like a non-sequitur to me. Pirating technology from
Britain is hardly evidence that it was easier for an inventor to
make money from his inventions in the US. If anything, the
pirating simply *reduced* the amount of money a British inventor
could make.
jon.
Gadfly
(Vadim S. Kaplunovsky) writes:
> In his opinion, the appalling poverty in pre-revolutionary France, which
> should have been a rich country, was caused by maldistribution of the real
> property, which in turn was caused by a concentrating system of inheritance.
> His prescription for avoiding such a calamity in America was to change
Did J. believe that pre-revolutionary France evidenced "appalling poverty"?
The cities had it worse than the rural areas (and perhaps J. saw little
outside Paris), but things were actually pretty good in France up until
the crop failures in 1787-88. Or at least objective indicators like
birth rate, longevity, and very low emigration lead to this conclusion--
contrary to myth and then-current English propaganda. The distribution
of wealth in France was highly skewed, of course, although it was probably
in keeping with that of other absolute monarchies of the period.
The propellant behind the French Revolution was a growing middle class
which was highly literate and gaining economic muscle, yet completely
shut out of the political process just as the king was driving France into
bankruptcy. The spark was the famine of 1788, whose effects were felt
mostly in the cities as the transportation infrastructure broke down.
It was a recipe for an explosive urban movement with no defined direction
or conclusion--and that's what happened.
*** ***
Ken Perlow ***** *****
22 Oct 92 ****** ****** 1 Brumaire An CCI
***** ***** gad...@ihspc.att.com <- New address.
** ** ** ** ^^^
...L'AUDACE! *** *** TOUJOURS DE L'AUDACE! ENCORE DE L'AUDACE!
Clayton Cramer
> In article <12...@optilink.UUCP> cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <BwDLA...@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
# ## 13 Colonies in the 18th Century, whether the end of slavery in the
# ## 1830s would have precipitated a rebellion along the same lines as the
# ## one which divided the USA thirty years later. I suspect a nation who
# ## independence was precipitated by the 'need' to preserve slavery would
# ## be a rather less pleasant nation than the one resulting from 1776.
# ##
# ## James Nicoll
# #
# #Probably. But would the cotton gin have come to fruition without
# #independence? At least part of Eli Whitney's hopes were to become
# #wealthy from his invention. He did not, because of widespread
# #patent infringement. But it does make you wonder if he would have
# #simply not pursued the idea, without that carrot of wealth to
# #urge him on.
#
# There's a link in your chain of logic which is deducable
# from the structure of the rest of your argument: that it was harder
# to make money from inventions in the 13 Colonies before Independence
# than after. Perhaps you might support this?
Primarily because, with Hamilton's encouragement, the new country
made a policy of promoting manufactures through tariff barriers.
# There appears to have been an industrial revolution in England
# about this time, so perhaps the British Empire did not entirely extinguish
# inovation amongst its subjects.
#
# James Nicoll
I don't believe that I implied that it did -- just that there was
more opportunity for an American to make money manufacturing in the
U.S. because of the tariff barriers, than in British colonies.
By the way, when did British patents cease to be a favor of the
king, and a guaranteed right? I recall learning that a number of
British inventors of the late 18th century received nothing for
their work, and some only received compensation from the British
Parliament, as lump sums.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
Anthropophagy: an alternative lifestyle for the 90s!
"Cannibalism is a term of oppression; the properly respectful term is 'human
recycling.'"
Jon Livesey
>
> king, and a guaranteed right?
Patents in the modern sense were issued starting about 1750.
By 1800 they were being issued on a regular basis at the rate
of over a hundred per year.
> I recall learning that a number of British inventors of the
> late 18th century received nothing for their work, and some
> only received compensation from the British Parliament, as
> lump sums.
That still happens sometimes. I believe Sir Frank Whittle
only ever received a lump sum payment for his work on the
jet engine. I think some of that money came from the US
as a settlement for their use of his work.
jon.
salte...@darwin.ntu.edu.au
> I have occasionally wonder if, had the Brits not alienated the
Just for once, history has provided something of an answer to a piece
of "What-iffery". Have a look at the history of South Africa to see
what could have happened in a slave-owning North America still part of
the British Empire.
The slave-owning Boers started out on the Great Trek in the 1830s to escape
British colonialism, mainly because slavery had become illegal in the British
Empire. For most of the 19th Century Transvaal and the Orange Free State
were independent, until the Boer War at the turn of the century. The Boers
lost, were subsequently badly treated (not as badly treated as black South
Africans, perhaps), and eventually came to power in 1940s/1950s, when they
instituted apartheid.
Not a very pleasant history, indeed.
Linden
--
Linden Salter-Duke email: SALTE...@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Australia Snail: Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811
Jon Livesey
|> >> >In article <BwDLA...@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>, jdni...@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:
|> > I have occasionally wonder if, had the Brits not alienated the
|> > 13 Colonies in the 18th Century, whether the end of slavery in the
|>
|>
|> Just for once, history has provided something of an answer to a piece
|> of "What-iffery". Have a look at the history of South Africa to see
|> what could have happened in a slave-owning North America still part of
|> the British Empire.
|>
|> The slave-owning Boers started out on the Great Trek in the 1830s to escape
|> British colonialism, mainly because slavery had become illegal in the British
|> Empire. For most of the 19th Century Transvaal and the Orange Free State
|> were independent, until the Boer War at the turn of the century. The Boers
|> lost, were subsequently badly treated (not as badly treated as black South
|> Africans, perhaps), and eventually came to power in 1940s/1950s, when they
|> instituted apartheid.
|>
|> Not a very pleasant history, indeed.
Not pleasant at all. But are you claiming that the history of
the US is radically different?
jon.