Hmmmmmm. -- WASHINGTON BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 21:33:20 09/20/02 Fri
Author: Grumpy�
Author Host/IP: 155-41.poccpe.cableone.net / 24.116.155.41
Subject: Hmmmmmm.
In reply to: Normal 's message, "Re: Wow!" on 21:18:11 09/20/02 Fri

Do you really think they foresaw the consequences of the language they used, the uses to which the lofty ideals they announced to the world would be put?

As an illustration of my point, there was heated discussion in the first session of Congress on the topic of the proper title to be used in referring to the President; many wanted "His Majesty, the President", for instance.

Jefferson's views would, if followed, have recreated English society (minus the titles only) in the daily life of our country; a fairly formal class structure, landed gentry, a middling class of shopkeepers, and a laboring class with little to say about government, if I understand his views correctly.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

No, probably not. -- Normal, 22:05:27 09/20/02 Fri
- Re: No, probably not. -- Grumpy�, 22:11:09 09/20/02 Fri
  - Re: No, probably not. -- Normal, 22:22:18 09/20/02 Fri
    - Re: No, probably not. -- Grumpy�, 22:38:04 09/20/02 Fri
      - Re: No, probably not. -- Noraml, 23:45:17 09/20/02 Fri
        Re: No, probably not. -- Donk, 17:19:46 09/22/02 Sun
        There's just too much going on to keep track of it all. -- Normal, 00:31:36 09/24/02 Tue
Re: Hmmmmmm. -- Donk, 23:38:23 09/21/02 Sat
- Re: Hmmmmmm. -- Grumpy�, 00:02:33 09/22/02 Sun
  - Re: Hmmmmmm. -- Donk, 14:16:15 09/22/02 Sun
Hmmmmmm is right -- Wilbs, 21:07:52 09/22/02 Sun
- Re: Hmmmmmm is right -- Grumpy�, 22:21:20 09/22/02 Sun
  - No, the document did NOT say anything about slaves. -- Wilbs, 21:08:27 10/11/02 Fri
    - Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the original wording is; -- Grumpy�, 21:24:13 10/11/02 Fri
      - And another thing; -- Grumpy�, 21:26:53 10/11/02 Fri
        Ok. There is reference to slavery -- Wilbs, 20:53:31 10/14/02 Mon
        Re: Ok. There is reference to slavery -- Grumpy�, 22:59:18 10/14/02 Mon
        And Catholics were not treated very well -- Wilbs, 19:36:01 10/16/02 Wed
        Re: And Catholics were not treated very well -- Grumpy�, 21:15:07 10/18/02 Fri
        You are right. -- wILBS, 18:52:24 10/29/02 Tue
        Re: You are right. -- Grumpy�, 00:27:09 10/30/02 Wed
        It's all about Cat tracks -- Wilbs, 21:01:28 11/01/02 Fri
        Re: It's all about Cat tracks -- Grumpy�, 01:14:24 11/02/02 Sat
        Re: It's all about Cat tracks -- Wilbs, 19:54:11 11/08/02 Fri