What if Jefferson had gotten the agrarian country he wanted?

[Speaker to Animals]

all this goes back to the first college class i ever took.

pretty sure that was right before i joined up here. back in 2010.

us history until the civil war.

i came out of it thinking, "so all these people debating slavery vs states' rights are pretty much both wrong. it was all about the economy."

It was more like a divorce. People will list all kinds of grievances and so forth, but really, it's just that these people can't really get along.

The slavery issue was basically the final straw that caused the south to secede and eventually attack the federal troops at Fort Sumter. But they were pissed off about a lot of things for a long time.

[TheReal_ND]

They are kind of both memes. In the South when you take US history they will make you list three reasons why the war happened that didn't involve slavery. That's a good starting point but at the end of the day I still think slavery was the crux wether intentional (I think so,) or not. Like I actually believe that the north was willing to stir up the slaves to get their way and I believe the South had much more at stake than the question of some slaves that, btw, were taken care of better than most any other slaves excepting perhaps Islamic slaves in Western Europe like the janisary. This whole argument is stupid though. It's not like the yanks and (((carpet baggers))) loved niggers so much. More like they were looking for a Casus belli to destroy whatever stood in their way.

[Okeefenokee]

slavery was the final issue that led them to secede.

but what led to them attacking sumter was federal troops not vacating the fort once it was no longer US soil. even smitty's said as much. anyone saying a nation would tolerate that is a loon or a liar. its clear from the record that the whole thing was pretty much all a big show anyway.

rebs say leave

feds say no

rebs fire the cannons

feds say ok

everyone walks away (except for one reb and one federal horse. would have made a better story had it been a federal mule) with most of their honor intact. calling this a casus belli is nonsense.

[Speaker to Animals]

The average union soldier came to become an ardent abolitionist by the end of the war. There was almost a religious conversion on that matter.

Both sides were deeply spiritual people. But the northerners were very intellectual and philosophical. These guys were marching across America from battle to battle carrying books by philosophers like Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The Yankee devotion to education and learning is one of their two key traits that make them so successful (the other being industriousness). It comes from their Puritan origins. The negative traits from their Puritan origins are there as well: their propensity to want to convert everybody into yankees (or what we call progressives now), their glee in public humiliation and shaming of people who dissent from their values, their total intolerance of people who do not believe in whatever utopian ideal they adopted in any given generation, and so on. They are all about making a heaven on Earth by forcing everybody to adhere to some kind of covenant. That's essentially what their neo-marxism does now. You have to adopt their social justice ideology, believe they can make the world a better place as long as everybody recognizes their intrinsic racism, white privilege (original sin), and performs public penance to expiate themselves of that sin. It's in effect the same thing as Puritanism, though superficially it seems worlds apart.

[heydaralon]

Brewster: Your census numbers are absurd. You are unable to differentiate between suburban, rural, and urban, and you were unable to read basic census data. Please stop trying to change the subject. Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with the decline of the modern city. We are talking about the present here, not some silly man in a white wig. The reason that cities are declining, is because more and more sensible people realize that they are toxic political and economic places driven by failed Democratic policies.

[Okeefenokee]

We're moving to this little town,

Belton is a city in the U.S. state of Texas, within the Killeen-Temple metropolitan area. The city is on the Interstate 35 corridor between Austin and Waco and is the seat of Bell County.The population was 20,547 in 2015 according to a US Census Estimate.[3] As of 2015 the metro region had a population of 450,051.[4]

My wife's there now. She loves it.

lol,

look at this wedding photo from belton!

[heydaralon]

That looks like a nice town.

I just found this report from the Brookings institute. Its from 2009. I'm not going to read this but I hope Brewster does. I'll just leave this here.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/up ... report.pdf

In line with their larger number of residents overall, the suburbs of the country’s 100 largest
metro areas had more than twice the number of unemployed residents as primary cities in May
2009 (Figure 2). Moreover, growth in the suburban unemployed population between May 2008
and May 2009 (74.9 percent) outpaced the increase seen in primary cities (70.5 percent) and the
nation as a whole (73.0 percent). While no primary city or suburb has avoided increases in
unemployment, fully 75 metro areas saw the number of suburban unemployed increase at a faster
rate than the unemployed population living in primary cities over this time period.
Unemployment rates in cities and suburbs also vary widely at the individual metro-area level
(Table 1A). In May 2009, the primary city unemployment rate ranged from 4.6 percent in
Omaha to 23.8 percent in Detroit. Suburban unemployment rates ranged from 4.3 percent in the
Des Moines metro area to 17.9 percent around Modesto. Metro areas such as Omaha and
Oklahoma City that placed among the lowest for city or suburban unemployment also had much
BROOKINGS | July 2009 2
lower intra-metropolitan disparities between their city and suburban rates, with most reporting a
difference of one percentage point or less. In contrast, cities and suburbs that had the highest
unemployment rates—like Bakersfield and Columbia—tended to exhibit much greater
differences in unemployment within their metro areas.

[brewster]

Brewster: Your census numbers are absurd. You are unable to differentiate between suburban, rural, and urban, and you were unable to read basic census data. Please stop trying to change the subject. Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with the decline of the modern city. We are talking about the present here, not some silly man in a white wig. The reason that cities are declining, is because more and more sensible people realize that they are toxic political and economic places driven by failed Democratic policies.

I didn't make up the numbers or the methodology, it's the census bureau that's fucked and can't differentiate places by density like they should.
Edit: read your link, not worth commenting on since it's talking about 2008-9, a VERY unusual economic period. Demographic trends need a bigger baseline.

I started the fucking subject as "what would have happened if Jeffersonians had won", nothing more. I said nothing about cities, nor about the present. I only proposed one scenario of farm unemployment due to mechanization at the end of the 19th century to get the ball rolling. The discussion of early 19th century economics is great, and closer to what I hoped for, but still begs the question of Jefferson winning control of US economic policy in the 1st decade of that century. Anyone who has studied the period knows it was far more complex than just slavery, but what if...?

[heydaralon]

Brewster: Your census numbers are absurd. You are unable to differentiate between suburban, rural, and urban, and you were unable to read basic census data. Please stop trying to change the subject. Thomas Jefferson has nothing to do with the decline of the modern city. We are talking about the present here, not some silly man in a white wig. The reason that cities are declining, is because more and more sensible people realize that they are toxic political and economic places driven by failed Democratic policies.

I didn't make up the numbers or the methodology, it's the census bureau that's fucked and can't differentiate places by density like they should.

I started the fucking subject as "what would have happened if Jeffersonians had won", nothing more. I said nothing about cities, nor about the present. I only proposed one scenario of farm unemployment due to mechanization at the end of the 19th century to get the ball rolling. The discussion of early 19th century economics is great, and closer to what I hoped for, but still begs the question of Jefferson winning control of US economic policy in the 1st decade of that century. Anyone who has studied the period knows it was far more complex than just slavery, but what if...?

What does Alexander Hamilton have to do with the massive flight taking place from urban centers in the present?

[brewster]

What does Alexander Hamilton have to do with the massive flight taking place from urban centers in the present?

Nothing at all, that's all StA hijacking the thread to pound his drum.

Crap, you're just trolling me, aren't you?