If the Smithsonian Institution was more interested in promoting a patriotic version of U.S. history, would it put the Abolitionist Founding Fathers on display?

PGA Weblog ^ | 8/23/25

[Ditto]

So many myths. You are just full of them.

[ProgressingAmerica]

Obviously you didn’t like the two ultra-specific answers I provided.

[ProgressingAmerica]

It was a sarcastic comment.

[Ditto]

It varied, depending on the good being purchased, but it ranged from 20% up to 50%, or thereabouts.

In 1860, tarrifs were lower than at any time in our history up until that point. And they would have stayed there if 11 southern states had not pulled out of the Union. With southern states voting, the Morrel tariffs would never had passed. Tariffs at that time represented 95% of Federal revenue.

So you can take your tariff argument and stack it up with the rest of your myths.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why are you incapable of saying in broad terms that the civil war is over there and the american revolution is over here, with their obvious and unmistakable distinctions?

The distinctions are imaginary, and the perception of distinctions is the product of a long running smear campaign against the Confederates.

[DiogenesLamp]

So many myths. You are just full of them.

Like what? I am unaware of any "myths" that I am full of.

[DiogenesLamp]

Obviously you didn’t like the two ultra-specific answers I provided.

In the context of the conversation we were having at the time, (which was about the meaning of Article IV, Section 2) you sound like you are trying to say there were lots of Zebras instead of Horses.

No. "Indentured servants" compared to slaves were akin to Zebras compared to Horses.

The Horses are numerous and dominant as a percentage, while the Zebras represent a tiny rare minority.

You are trying to pull a fallacy of composition. You think that by bringing up "indentured servants", you can prove that Article IV, Section 2 is about "indentured servants".

It's not. It is about slaves.

[DiogenesLamp]

In 1860, tarrifs were lower than at any time in our history up until that point.

You certainly are trying to milk that "tariff" word. As I said, the economic problems created by the North go way beyond just "tariffs."

Tariffs at that time represented 95% of Federal revenue.

Yes, I know, and the South produced 72% of them.

[jeffersondem]

“It was one of the Compromises made at the time. If you think it is pro slavery, why does it have a sunset written into it.”

That is an interesting comment. It doesn’t seem rhetorical or sarcastic.

How do you define sunset?

[Ditto]

Yes, I know, and the South produced 72% of them.

That’s total BS. Show us your data on that.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"The distinctions are imaginary, and the perception of distinctions is the product of a long running smear campaign against the Confederates."

You know, the thought had occurred to me that by bringing up the abolitionist Founding Fathers that you also took the abolitionist Founding Fathers as a smear against the Confederates. You and jeffersondem swooped in, like what an hour after I posted. Super quick.

You guys are clearly in opposition to the idea that there could've been any abolitionism prior to the 1830s, whatsoever. Perhaps the 1820s. But definitely not at the Founding. This belief seems to be an immutable entry in the Civil War ideology.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"you sound like you are trying to say there were lots of Zebras instead of Horses."

Wonderful. "sound like" I get to be forced to defend your words while pretending I said them. Yippie.

"You are trying to pull a fallacy of composition. You think that by bringing up "indentured servants", you can prove that Article IV, Section 2 is about "indentured servants"."

All you have to do is choose to read what is already typed. I included three classes: redemptioner, indentured, and slave. Your attempt to say I negated one and replaced it with another is a fail.

The clause applies to all three classes, it is my original and continuing assertion. To say only two or only one is historical malpractice.