On Federal Taxation in the United States

Feb 23, 2015 20:41:25 GMT pjohns1873 said:

What is your proof, exactly--from a neutral source--that Thomas Jefferson was "prohibited by law" from freeing his slaves; and, presumably, that others were also? 

A side note:  Wikipedia states that it was Jefferson's "growing debts [by 1776], which made it very difficult to free his slaves and thereby lose them as assets."

I've been able to do additional investigations into this matter and, while the sources are numerous, what I found is interesting.

Slaves were considered to be an asset of the estate and virtually all plantation owners had loans where the estate was the collateral for the loan. The slaves, as assets of the estate, were collateral on the loans and could not be 'freed' as that would represent a loss of collateral securing the loan. They could be sold as the money received in the transaction was also collateral on the loan.

By way of analogy you could own a car with a loan against it and you can't give the car away as long as that loan exists.

Bottom line it was the loans against the estate that prevented the slave owner from simply freeing a slave in most cases. Only if the slave owner had no debt obligations were they then able to free any slaves they owned but rarely was this the case. Jefferson fell into this category as he was deeply in debt as you accurately noted. 

So you are correct in one sense. The general law didn't prevent the freeing of the slave but contract law, where the slave was the collateral for a loan, prevented the freeing of the slave.  

Mar 6, 2015 21:48:45 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I really cannot disagree with what you have said here.

And I think we would both agree--in fact, I know we would both agree--that it was simply reprehensible to treat a human being as a mere piece of property.  In fact, even "reprehensible" is probably insufficient to describe the moral bankruptcy of the institution.  Sadly, however, that is the way it was.   

Yes, we're in agreement on this. It was reprehensible to say the least and it was historical and history cannot be changed.

What we should be doing today is exposing that history as opposed to hiding it. Only if we know and understand the historical injustices committed in America can we understand how far we've come and prevent ourselves from committing injustices in the future. Sadly I've heard that some Republican controlled states are objecting to history books for high school students that do address the injustices committed in America in the past. They seem to argue that we shouldn't tell people about the truth where America has a checkered past of both success and failure and instead only want the "positives" of American history taught in our high school classrooms. The success of enterprise in the United States was often based upon injustices committed against people and that should be fully understood by every American.

To some degree we've addressed many injustices, and should rightfully be proud as Americans of that fact, but we have much more to accomplish in this regard as many injustices continue today. We should never waiver in our commitment to identify and correct the injustices committed against people in the United States.

We can't change the past but if we understand the past then we can and must change the future.

Mar 9, 2015 17:58:02 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I will not present myself as an expert on this subject--I am not--but it is my understanding that the textbooks that have recently become the subject of controversy are essentially anti-American; which is very different than merely pointing out the flaws of our past. And, as one article recently put it, "Some [parents] worry [that these textbooks] are too sympathetic to Islam or downplay the achievements of President Ronald Reagan."

I'm not an expert on the exact texts either but I do know of one item they wanted removed. They wanted the information on the Japanese internment camps on the West Coast removed in their entirety because that travesty reflects poorly upon the history of the United States. It isn't that the history is innaccurate or presented in an biased manner but instead the objection is that it's included in the history book at all. They didn't want to revise the text to make it more accurate but instead simply demanded it be removed because it was not "postive" American history but instead something, that as Americans, we should be ashamed of.

When presenting factual historical information is considered to be "anti-American" then there is something wrong with the definition of what it is to be an American.

Something I found interesting was a recent article on the flap over the UC Irvine student body government voting to remove all flags from inside the student government building (that was reversed by the college adminstration) because the article addressed the changing views on patriotism by the "Millennial Generation" as they no longer accept American Exceptionalism that was more inherent in prior generations. I would suggest that this is driven by the fact that the United States is only "first" in a few categories anymore. We're first in rates of incarceration, we're first in military spending, and we're first in wars of foreign interventionism but we're no longer first in freedom and liberty, economic equality, productivity or even democracy anymore. Those things that made us exceptional in the past that we could be proud of have slowly eroded away and we're not the world leader anymore related to them. Instead we're leading in categories that are viewed negatively by most of the Millennial Generation.

It was an interesting and thought provoking article.   

Mar 12, 2015 6:20:44 GMT pjohns1873 said:

If some people opposed the inclusion of actual facts in the textbook, they were horribly wrongheaded, in my opinion. The Japanese internment camps really did happen--there is no debate there--and it would be just as wrong to pretend that it did not happen as it would be to pretend that the institution of slavery never existed in America.

As I have noted previously (in which thread, I am unsure), I believe very strongly in American Exceptionalism.  And I believe that we are now a better country than we were 50 or 60 years ago--at the zenith of the popularity of this belief--when blacks and women were openly discriminated against; and there were no laws in place to stop this from happening. 

Like you I'm not an expert on what these conservative organizations/states are specifically wanting to remove but the impression I've gotten from the news stories is that they want to white-wash American history as opposed to having it presented from a factual historical standpoint. You and I are more reasonable and are willing to accept that while America has stood for many good things, and has accomplished many good things, our history is also checked with atrocities that must also be accepted for what they were.

In a real sense I'm also a believer in American Exceptionalism but it's based upon the political ideology our nation was founded upon as opposed to the action of our nations that historically all too often violate that ideology. That ideology is expressed in just two sentences contained in the Declaration of Independence and I've cited them often.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." 

This is a lofty ideology unmatched by any other nation and that makes America exceptional. Of course it defines an ideal which is always a goal that can never be achieved but instead is something we should always strive for knowing we'll never actually achieve the goal. Our failures are numerous but only by knowing them can we address those failures in our path towards the goal of the ideology. That's why accurately informing every generation of our failure, more so than our successes, is important. My wife, for example, is a ceramic artist that subjects her work to peer review. Having them tell her "it's good" doesn't help her improve her art. Only those willing to address what they don't like about a piece helps her improve her future work. I found the samething in my career. It wasn't what I did right so much but instead what I did wrong that was important because if I didn't know what I did wrong I'd keep doing it.

One of the problems, or perhaps just a consideration, when addressing the "Millennial Generation" is that I believe they don't really understand and address the ideology upon which America was founded upon and instead predominately address the failures of America when it comes to our expressed ideology. They're judging the "actions" as opposed to judging the "ideology" and our actions do not make us exceptional. Only our ideology is exceptional and we must understand that our actions are a "work-in-process" where we are hopefully striving the achieve the ideology. It's only my opinion but I know for a fact that the political ideology of the United States, expressed in the two sentences I always cite, was grossly ignored for all intent and purpose when I attended high school. The words were addressed but never the meaning and it's the meaning that makes us exceptional.

Mar 16, 2015 18:00:02 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I think the comparison you have made to your wife is very good. People should not be told merely that what they have done is good; they must also be told how to improve. (It does no good, however, to portray someone else--or one's own country--as essentially bad.  That is very different from saying that the other person--or one's country--is good, but still in need of some improvement.) 

I think that, for the most part, America's actions have defined it as an exceptional country.  Obviously, there are some serious exceptions here.  You have just named one of these--the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, whose only "crime" was to be born into a certain race and ethnicity--as well as the institution of slavery (and subsequent Jim Crow laws) and the second-class status of women for a very long time.  But when compared with other countries (and not merely with some ideal), America has, indeed, been an exceptionally fine country, in my opinion. 

A person born and raised in America can't really compare the United States to other countries. They can only judge America based upon what they believe is right and wrong.

It would be my opinion that perhaps you under estimate or rationalize many of the atrocities committed by the United States. The United States has supported more tyrannical regimes and dictatorships than the vast majority of nations. We've supported terrorist organizations and gone to war against nations that were never a threat to us. Over 6 million innocent people have died in the wars we've been a party to, often supporting tyrannical regimes, since WW II and I don't believe many nations can match that death toll of innocents that borders on the death toll of the innocent Jews during the Nazi holocaust. In 1959 Hawaii was admitted as a state and Hawaii was illegally stolen from the Hawaii people by American businessmen that over-threw the monarchy in 1893 (after 90% of the Hawaiian population was wiped-out by European deseases) and the independence of the Hawaiians was wrongfully stolen from them.

Once again I believe it's a lack of understanding of the ideals upon which America was founded that is the underlying problem. Our actions are all that good but our ideals are exceptional and unmatched by any other country.

PS - The Native Hawaiians are still extremely PO'd over the theft of their nation from them by the "Haole" and I know that for fact because I used to live there. Of course the Native Americans are probably still PO'd as well.  

Mar 19, 2015 19:23:33 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Many of those wars to which you have alluded were pre-emptive in nature.  (If the US had not gone to war when it did, war might only have been delayed--not entirely denied--and the ultimate death toll might have been even greater.) 

It would be very hard, I think, to prove that European settlers attempted to wipe out the native population--of either Hawaii or the contiguous states--through disease.  (How many of these Europeans, do you suppose, wanted to contract the disease in the first place?)

Your use of the modifier, "Native," speaks volumes--even if you hoped to slip it in there unnoticed.  I doubt that most Hawaiins per se are "extremely PO'd" about Hawaii's becoming a state in 1959.  But perhaps the non-assimilationist portion of the Hawaiian population is... 

The Vietnam War could have been completely avoided by simply allowing the internationally supervised democratic unification election that was agreed to in Geneva when the Viet Minh defeated the French. That democratic process, guarenteed to take place in 1956 under the peace accords, was denied to the Vietnamese people which lead to the US backed Second Indochina (Vietnam) War were over 2 million innocent Vietmanese lost their lives. There was nothing "pre-emptive" about that war.

The division of Korea could have been avoided had the US not blocked the estabishment of a single Korea under Lyuh Woon-hyung that is revered to this day by both North and South Koreans. It was US pressure that forced Lyuh Woon-hyung from the political scene resulting in a divided Korea. The Korean War was completely avoidable but because of US interventionism in preventing a single Korean from emerging after WW II it became unavoidable. It is also interesting to note that Russian troops only remained in N Korea for a few years and their presence prevented the Korean War but only when they withdrew (and the US didn't from S Korea) did the war erupt. It is quite possible that if the US would have withdrawn it's troops when the Russians did that Korea could have been reunited without a war. That is speculative of course but we do know that the US intervention to block a unified Korea under Lyuh Woon-hyung resulted in the partition that lead to the Korean War.  

Whether the desease was intentional or not is a moot point because there is no denying the fact that the decimination of the native populatins by desease was taken full advantage of by the "white colonialists" to suppress the native population and subjugate them to "foreign" rule. This occurred often in defiance of treaties between the native government and the United States such as in the case with Hawaii.

You're unaware of the deep hatred of the "ˈhɔule" (pronounced "howlie") or non-Hawaiians by the native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian state government conducts open campaigns to encourage the Hawaiian natives to "treat the hɔule with respect" because Hawaii depends upon hɔule tourist dollars for it's economy. They put on their "smiling face" when dealing with the hɔule but they deeply resent foreigners coming to their islands, buying up all of the land making it virtually impossible for a native Hawaiian to afford to purchase a home these days, and dominating the Hawaiian economy leaving the majority of the natives in poverty. They lived in paradise and paradise has been stolen from them by "foreign" immigrants and they deeply resent it.    

Mar 23, 2015 17:38:13 GMT pjohns1873 said:

With the above post, you have openly revealed what I already suspected: i.e. that you sympathize with the "deep hatred" of "Hawaiian natives" toward others. (The "tolerance" that the left usually proclaims seems to be a one-way street: It believes that majorities should be nice to minorities, but not so much the other way around.)

Yes, I suppose that the Vietnam War could have been "completely avoided" if only the US had agreed, without complaint, to communist domination of the entire country.  (As it happens, that occurred anyway, since the US did not win the Vietnam War; but that was never the intention.) 

Korea's not being divided would certainly have benefitted the North Koreans, as North Korea is, at best, a Third World state--nothing at all comparable to its southern counterpart. 

I'm sympathetic to the plight of any people that have had their rights violated and I've probably over-stated the feelings of the native Hawaiians. Accurately it would probably be correct to state that many have a deep resentment against those that violated their Right of Sovereignty as a people by over-throwing their lawful government and stealing their islands from them. They tolerate the "houle" that violated their rights but resent them with justification.

Communism is a political-economical system that is inherently neither good nor bad and the people of a nation have a right to establish any form of government they believe will provide for the future safe-guards of their security.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Vietnamese people had suffered "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" under French colonialism that, under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh, they had thrown off and the Vietnamese people had sole right and authority to determine what form of government they wanted "to provide new Guards for their future security." It was the US interventionism that denied them this right of self-determination and that subjected to people of South Vietnam to the same "absolute Despotism" that they had exprienced under the French. Some can condemn the regime of the North under Ho Chi Minh as being oppressive but the succession of US backed puppet regimes in the South were far worse. We turned South Vietnam into a nation of martial law, black markets, and prostitution. The US record in South Vietnam was not about freedom but enslavement and tyranny.

We can note that since the Vietnam War ended that Vietnam has transitioned from a communism state to a form of market socialism/capitalism with private ownership of land and property rights being restored slowly by the government since the 1980's. This would have arguably occurred much sooner if the US had not prevented reunification in Vietnam in 1956.        

Lyuh Woon-hyung was a communist but he was a centralist unlike those in the hardcore communist regime that took control in North Korea when he was ousted by pressure from the United States. He was also a Christian that believed in representative government having helped establish  Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in 1919 and served in the legislature. He was assassinated in 1947 by a right-wing radical. The point would be that we wouldn't have the oppressive hardcore communist dictatorship in North Korea today had it not been for the US interventionism in the political affairs of the Korean people at the end of WW II.  We created the hardcore communist regime in North Vietnam by refusing to allow a centralist that was supported by both the left and the right from coming to power with our blind political interventionism into the sovereign affairs of the Korean people at the end of WW II.