I can say nothing to refute your off the wall rant more effective, than to suggest that people reread it! You well illustrate my point, that your position is hate-driven.
But I will point out some obvious things, which even you will agree with, if you will stop and catch your breath, and stop having a veritable tantrum:
When you suggest that Andrew Jackson would have gone on the rampage you suggest, you conveniently ignore the fact that Jackson was a slaveholder, himself. He was not working his own estate at the Hermitage. When Jackson joked about hanging John C. Calhoun, who was his intellectual superior, he was angry about the Tariff nullification attempt. It had nothing to do with slavery.
As for Hamilton & Lincoln & the Constitution? The Constitution specifically recognizes slavery. You may wish that it did not. But it did--specifically in providing for the fugitive slave laws, that secured the return of runaway slaves.
But it is not your preoccupation with radical assessment of American Societies of the middle 19th Century, which offends American Conservatives. It is your support for monolithic structures--similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. You would be as offensive, if you were advocating forcing New England to live under Southern social values, as you are suggesting the converse.
America was never intended to be a Nazi style monolith. It was never intended to force one social view on all Americans. And it is your intemperate refusal to allow the diversity, an acceptance of which made America possible, originally, that makes your rant totally unacceptable to thinking Conservatives, North or South.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
While perhaps I shouldn't, I do hate enemies of the United States foreign and domestic. Perhaps the domestic more since they should know better.
Andrew Jackson was not responding to a particular issue like the tariff or slavery nor was he joking. He was responding to potential Treason and disUnion or secession. Slavers who did not revolt would not be affected so don't try and shift the issue away from the TREASON. Jackson being a slaveholder HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE. He may have been a slaveholder but he most definitely was NOT A TRAITOR.
The constitution did NOT provide for a fugitive slave law I suggest you reread Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3 for a clearer understanding. Plus, it NEVER recognized slavery or used the word in the document.
My views don't offend ANY conservatives. I don't care what pseudo-conservatives think about them.
I support the constitution of the United States of America not structures, monolithic or otherwise. Apparently you know as little about the Nazis as American politics and history.
Nor will I ever support the "diversity" of terror and human enslavement or defend their defenders. Nor do I pretend that the Slaver aristocracy spoke for anything but a tiny ruling class which oppressed black and white alike. It was as idiotic a bunch as I have ever run across and caused a disaster of Biblical proportions to be visited on many innocents ruining its section for a century and unleashing crippling hatreds amidst its people. Hatreds the Republican Party historically attempted to alieviate. Hatreds the DemocRATic party fanned and profited from for its entire existence.