Nostalgia-------year 1904

SOME NOSTALGIA :rolleyes:

THE YEAR 1904 :eek:



Maybe this will boggle your mind, I know it did mine! The year is 1904 ... one hundred years ago. What a difference a century makes! Here are some of the U.S.. statistics for 1904:


The average life expectancy in the U.S. was 47 years.


Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. had a bathtub.


Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.


A three-minute call from Denver to New York City cost eleven dollars.


There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S., and only 144 miles of paved roads.


The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.


Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more heavily populated than California. With a mere 1.4 million residents, California was only the 21st most populous state in the Union.


The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower.


The average wage in the U.S. was 22 cents an hour.


The average U.S. worker made between $200 and $400 per year.


A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year, a dentist $2,500 per year, a veterinarian between $1,500 and $4,000 per year, and a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.


More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S.took place at home.


Ninety percent of all U.S. physicians had no college education. Instead, they attended medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and by the government as "substandard."


Sugar cost four cents a pound. Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.


Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.


Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used borax or egg yolks for shampoo.


Canada passed a law prohibiting poor people from entering the country for any reason.


The five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke


The American flag had 45 stars. Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.


The population of Las Vegas, Nevada, was 30!!!


Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and iced tea hadn't been invented.


There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.


Two of 10 U.S. adults couldn't read or write. Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated high school.


Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at corner drugstores. According to one pharmacist, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health." (Shocking!)


Eighteen percent of households in the U.S. had at least one full-time servant or domestic.

There were only about 230 reported murders in the entire U.S.


And I forwarded this from someone else without typing it myself, and sent it to you in a matter of seconds! Try to imagine what it may be like in another 100 years . It staggers the mind :cwm27:

its cool

:lol2: I love reading stuff like that. I bet southern California was beautiful back then. No smog, no tourists, just pure Cali.

it still is

SOME NOSTALGIA :rolleyes:

THE YEAR 1904 :eek:

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over the counter at corner drugstores. According to one pharmacist, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health." (Shocking!)


I hate to be a smart ass but I do not believe the information on herion is correct. It was, I believe, developed by Bayer as a cough supressent in 1915.
The name 'Heroin' was their brand name (like Tylenol or Viagara)

I suspect the original authour might have confused herion with cocaine, which had been used for many years as a do-all wonder tonic in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Coca Cola had cocaine in it at the time, (for the same reason it has caffiene today)

how much did gas cost lol?
Did women back then shave there legs? no
Both world wars hadnt occered(sp) yet
planes had yet to be invented
Gorilla's werent discovered yet

With a mere 1.4 million residents, California was only the 21st most populous state in the Union.
Everyone, go away! Too many people here in California now.

That is a very good read. It's amazing how much things change in 100 years.

Gorilla's werent discovered yet

Discovered by whom?

civalized society (sp) google it if u dont belive me.

planes had yet to be invented


Okay, Cliff Claven here must remind you that the first heavier than air powered flight was 1903 (Wright Bros.), so powered planes did exist.

Okay, Cliff Claven here must remind you that the first heavier than air powered flight was 1903 (Wright Bros.), so powered planes did exist.
a year off....wow i feel dumb

I don't think anyone mentioned this... but women couldn't vote.

I don't think anyone mentioned this... but women couldn't vote.
They could in one or two states, I don't remember which ones though. That's your fault, for having too many states ;)

Okay, Cliff Claven here must remind you that the first heavier than air powered flight was 1903 (Wright Bros.), so powered planes did exist.


I know that is what they teach in regular US history classes but its quite a bit more complicated than that:


http://www.fact-index.com/m/mi/milestones_in_aviation.html


Depending on the definition ther are quite a few people to whom the first heavier than air flight can be atributed to.

Jimster... if they could vote in one or two states, that was only on the local level, cause the constitution didn't grant them suffrage until 1920.

And I didn't know you weren't from the US, you speak (type) English so well

I know that is what they teach in regular US history classes but its quite a bit more complicated than that:


http://www.fact-index.com/m/mi/milestones_in_aviation.html


Depending on the definition ther are quite a few people to whom the first heavier than air flight can be atributed to.
Yes, thank you for pointing out the other claims. Realistically, flying kites and gliders in ancient China is heavier than air flight too.

Without criticising anyone, I just wanted to point out the most obvious flaw in the initial posting. (other than herion........hmmmm....)

Yes, thank you for pointing out the other claims. Realistically, flying kites and gliders in ancient China is heavier than air flight too.

Without criticising anyone, I just wanted to point out the most obvious flaw in the initial posting. (other than herion........hmmmm....)



My fault: You were right, so with alittle more information regarding the history of herion :lol:

Source: Sunday Times
Date: 13 September 1998

How aspirin turned hero
A hundred years ago Heinrich Dreser made a fortune from the discovery of heroin and aspirin - but he may have ended his days as an addict. RICHARD ASKWITH reports on a chemist who prescribed heroin for coughs

THE MAN in the 100-year-old photograph is not, to the modern eye, prepossessing. Balding, bespectacled and clerkish, he scarcely dominates his own portrait, let alone the picture of him with his staff in his laboratory.
Yet Heinrich Dreser, chemist and opportunist, was one of the most influential men of his age.

Between 1897 and 1914, Dreser worked for Bayer, the former dye factory that was to become the first of the world's pharmaceutical giants, in Wuppertal, north-west Germany.

Friedrich Engels was born there. While Dreser made less of a mark on history, you could argue he had the greater influence on the 20th century. As head of Bayer's pharmacological laboratory, he was responsible for the launch of two drugs that have shaped the way we live: aspirin, the world's most successful legal drug; and heroin, the most successful illegal one.

Aspirin, of which the world now consumes 40 billion tablets a year, was launched 100 years ago next February. A fanfare of publicity will mark the centenary.

The centenary of heroin is more ambiguous: it was launched in November 1898 but was registered as a trademark in various countries from June that year, most lucratively in the US in August. But whenever the centenary falls, Bayer won't be celebrating.

This is understandable; but the stories of aspirin and heroin are intertwined, not least through Dreser.

Born in 1860, in Darmstadt, the son of a physics professor, he showed promise as a chemist from an early age. After receiving his doctorate from Heidelberg University, he worked in various laboratories before becoming a professor at Bonn University in 1893. Four years later he joined the Bayer Company, where he was in charge of testing the efficacy and safety of new drugs.

Dreser was admired for his thorough, methodical approach, and for his innovations in testing (he was, for example, the first chemist to use animal experiments on an industrial scale). The credit for originating new products for Bayer belonged, strictly speaking, to the researcher Arthur Eichengruen, but Dreser had the power to decide which new products would be developed. He had also negotiated a special deal which guaranteed him a share of the profits from products he launched.

In 1897 the Bayer chemist Felix Hoffmann, acting on Eichengruen's instructions, discovered a new process for modifying salicyclic acid (a remedy for fever and inflammation which unfortunately has excruciating digestive side effects) to produce acetylsalicyclic acid (ASA).

This compound, later to be named Aspirin, had been isolated before and the healing powers of salicylates (derived from willow bark) had been known for centuries. But Hoffmann had created a reliable process for making it.

Eichengruen enthusiastically recommended ASA to Dreser in 1898. Dreser, after cursory consideration, rejected it. Ostensibly, his objection was that ASA would have an "enfeebling" action on the heart. "The product has no value," he pronounced confidently. But the real problem was almost certainly that he had another product on his mind whose impending success he was anxious not to jeopardise. This was heroin.

Like aspirin, the drug that Bayer launched under the trademark Heroin in 1898 was not an original discovery. Diacetylmorphine, a white, odourless, bitter, crystalline powder deriving from morphine, had been invented in 1874 by an English chemist, C R Wright.

But Dreser was the first to see its commercial potential. Scientists had been looking for some time for a non-addictive substitute for morphine, then widely used as a painkiller and in the treatment of respiratory diseases. If diacetylmorphine could be shown to be such a product, Bayer - and Dreser - would hit the jackpot.

Diacetylmorphine was first synthesised in the Bayer laboratory in 1897 - by Hoffmann, two weeks after he first synthesised ASA. The work seems to have been initiated by Dreser, who was by then aware of Wright's discovery, even though he subsequently implied that heroin was an original Bayer invention.

By early 1898 was testing it on sticklebacks, frogs and rabbits. He also tested it on some of Bayer's workers, and on himself. The workers loved it, some saying it made them feel "heroic" (heroisch). This was also the term used by chemists to describe any strong drug (and diacetylmorphine is four times stronger than morphine). Creating a brand name was easy.

In November 1898, Dreser presented the drug to the Congress of German Naturalists and Physicians, claiming it was 10 times more effective as a cough medicine than codeine, but had only a tenth of its toxic effects. It was also more effective than morphine as a painkiller. It was safe. It wasn't habit-forming. In short, it was a wonder drug - the Viagra of its day.

"What we don't recognise now," says David Muso, professor of psychiatry and the history of medicine at Yale Medical School, "is that this met what was then a desperate need - not for a painkiller, but for a cough remedy".

Tuberculosis and pneumonia were then the leading causes of death, and even routine coughs and colds could be severely incapacitating. Heroin, which both depresses respiration and, as a sedative, gives a restorative night's sleep, seemed a godsend.

The initial response to its launch was overwhelmingly positive. Dreser had already written about the drug in medical journals, and studies had endorsed his view that heroin could be effective in treating asthma, bronchitis, phthisis and tuberculosis. Now mailshots and free samples were sent out by the thousand to physicians in Europe and the US. The label on the samples showed a lion and a globe. (There is a notorious brand of Burmese heroin, Double Globe, that uses remarkably similar packaging today.)

By 1899, Bayer was producing about a ton of heroin a year, and exporting the drug to 23 countries. The country where it really took off was the US, where there was already a large population of morphine addicts, a craze for patent medicines, and a relatively lax regulatory framework. Manufacturers of cough syrup were soon lacing their products with Bayer heroin.

There were heroin pastilles, heroin cough lozenges, heroin tablets, water-soluble heroin salts and a heroin elixir in a glycerine solution. Bayer never advertised heroin to the public but the publicity material it sent to physicians was unambiguous. One flyer described the product thus: "Heroin: the Sedative for Coughs . . . order a supply from your jobber."

"It possesses many advantages over morphine," wrote the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal in 1900. "It's not hypnotic, and there's no danger of acquiring a habit."

But worrying rumours were surfacing. As early as 1899, researchers began to report patients developing "tolerance" to the drug, while a German researcher denounced it as "an extremely dangerous poison". By 1902 - when heroin sales were accounting for roughly five percent of Bayer's net profits - French and American researchers were reporting cases of "heroinism" and addiction.

The bandwagon took time to stop. Between 1899 and 1905, at least 180 clinical works on heroin were published around the world, and most were favourable, if cautious. In 1906, the American Medical Association approved heroin for medical use, though with strong reservations about a "habit" that was "readily formed".

But with the accumulation of negative reports and the steady encroachment on the market by other manufacturers, it was clear heroin would never deliver the riches that Dreser had yearned for.

Had heroin been his only pet project, this disappointment could have spelt career disaster. Dreser had the kind of personality that needed commercial results to lend it plausibility. With his unfashionably formal clothes and his habit of dragging an overweight dachshund to work with him, he was seen as an eccentric loner, a "difficult" man whose ready sarcasm and autocratic manner meant he did not want for enemies.

Luckily, although his first "baby" was showing signs of turning into a monster, Dreser had belatedly adopted another: aspirin. Eichengruen, refusing to accept Dreser's rejection of ASA, had continued to investigate it and to lobby for its development. Eventually, Dreser recognised which way the wind was blowing, tested ASA on himself (as well as on his laboratory of rabbits), and finally published an enthusiastic scientific paper recommending it, particularly for the treatment of rheumatism - but omitting to mention the contributions of Eichengruen and Hoffmann. In February 1899, the brand name "Aspirin" was registered, and in June, Dreser presided over its launch.

Like heroin, aspirin more or less sold itself. As a painkiller without undesirable side effects, it was - and remained for decades - unique. By the end of 1899 it was being used all over Europe and the US, and by the time the heroin bubble burst, aspirin had more than filled the gap. Bayer was on its way to becoming an industrial giant. Hoffman and Eichengruen do not seem to have received any special compensation for their efforts. For Dreser, though, the rewards were spectacular.

In 1913, Bayer decided to stop making heroin. There had been an explosion of heroinrelated admissions at New York and Philadelphia hospitals, and in East Coast cities a substantial population of recreational users was reported (some supported their habits by collecting and selling scrap metal, hence the name "junkie"). Prohibition seemed inevitable and, sure enough, the next year the use of heroin without prescription was outlawed in the US. (A court ruling in 1919 also determined it illegal for doctors to prescribe it to addicts.)

But Dreser was now earning, on top of his "substantial" salary, more than 100 000 marks a year (about By 1914 Dreser was an exceptionally rich 53-year-old - so much so that he decided not to renew his contract at Bayer. When war broke out he moved to Dusseldorf as honorary, unsalaried professor of his own pharmacological institute at the new Medical Academy.

Thereafter, the record becomes indistinct. His first wife died, there were no children and, it appears, few friends. There were rumours that he was addicted to heroin himself. Eventually, his health deteriorated. His last years may or may not have been happy. But they were certainly comfortable - which is more than can be said for Eichengruen, who, in his eighties, emerged from a concentration camp to write an unpublished denunciation of Dreser's "discovery" of aspirin.

In 1924, health problems forced Dreser to give up his institute and he moved to Zurich, where he remarried. That year, the US banned the use and manufacture of heroin altogether, even for medical purposes. (In Britain, the medical use of heroin continues to this day, accounting for 95 percent of the world's legal heroin consumption.) The same year, four days before Christmas, Dreser died.

The cause of death was given as a cerebral apoplexy, or stroke. It is just conceivable - had anyone known it - that he could have averted this fate by the simple expedience of taking an aspirin a day. If the rumours of addiction were true, the irony is doubled: Dreser, incorrigible in his misjudgment, had spent his twilight years taking a daily dose of the wrong wonder drug.

Even before its properties as a prophylactic against circulatory disease became known, aspirin changed the lives of millions, reducing the sum of human misery. It also produced untold wealth for, among others, the shareholders of Bayer, which still earns about R4-billion a year from the drug. (Those "others" include the generations of lawyers who acted in an 80-year orgy of litigation in which the original Bayer company, having had its American assets confiscated at the end of World War One, fought to reclaim the right to sell "Bayer aspirin" in the US.)

The impact of heroin is harder to assess. In 1898, there were an estimated 250 000 morphine addicts in the US - a per capita rate roughly twice as high as today's. In Britain, similarly, opium use was widespread, especially in East Anglia, where it was a more or less necessary antidote to the malaria endemic in the Fens. It was also used as a sedative for babies. (In Britain, however, opium seems to have been superseded not by heroin but by other modern drugs - notably aspirin.)

But the appearance of heroin played a crucial role in cementing the link between drug abuse and crime. Pharmacologically, heroin has the same effect as morphine. But you need only about a quarter as much to get the same effect. It is also cheaper, quicker and easier to use. As national and international legislation against opiates gathered force after 1914, addicts who wished to continue their habit inevitably switched to heroin. By 1924, 98 percent of New York's drug addicts were thought to be heroin addicts. With legal channels of supply closed, criminal gangs - first Jewish, then Italian - began to monopolise the trade. By the end of the 30s, the Mafia was inextricably involved.

Today, heroin use in Britain and the US is increasing faster than at any time since the 60s: heroin seizures rose by 135 percent between 1996 and 1997. There are thought to be between 160 000 and 200 000 heroin addicts in the UK, who spend almost R30-billion a year on heroin. And the British government spends R14-billion a year on drug-related policies.

The other great change resulting from Dreser's marketing of a faster-acting and more conveniently consumed opiate has been a change in the profile of the average opiate abuser. In 1898, the typical morphine addict in Britain or the US was a middle-class woman in her forties, whereas today's typical addict is an 18-year-old male.









CHEMICAL REACTION: Dreser (seated, right) with his staff at Bayer, where he tested aspirin and heroin on himself

As early as 1899, researchers began to report patients developing 'tolerance' to the drug, while a German researcher denounced it as 'an extremely dangerous poison'. By 1902 - when heroin sales were accounting for roughly five percent of Bayer's net profits - French and American researchers were reporting cases of 'heroinism' and addiction




* * *


Advertisement

Heroin as a cough medicine


http://opioids.com/heroin/heroinhistory.html

Jimster... if they could vote in one or two states, that was only on the local level, cause the constitution didn't grant them suffrage until 1920.

And I didn't know you weren't from the US, you speak (type) English so well
Why thank you. I'm originally from New Zealand, that'd probably explain a lot (English being the native language).

Just a fun fact; by 1904 women in New Zealand had suffrage for 8 years

Interesting fact...

Compare the biography of the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html) of the era to that of the current president-by-court-order.

So in that respect, NZ was ahead of the US... see, these are the things we are not taught... we are taught that the US has always been the "leader" in the Anglo-Saxon World, while as I have now been Educated, we were not pioneers in that aspect.

the US has always been the "leader"?? The british ruled the world for over 300 years! They colonied the USA and Australia! The US just stayed where they are.


That was a cool article, thanks for that.
It took me 30 minutes to read it!

Jimster, I didn't know there were people in NZ in 1904

The five leading causes of death in the U.S. were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke



Death by Diarrhea!!?? Oh dear God!!!

Well, the US has pioneered more things than any other nation I can think of, democracy is a start, gee, could this be something the rest of the world uses. I assumed women's suffrage was another one, and was astonished that it was not so.

the US has always been the "leader"?? The british ruled the world for over 300 years! They colonied the USA and Australia! The US just stayed where they are.


That was a cool article, thanks for that.
It took me 30 minutes to read it!

Jimster, I didn't know there were people in NZ in 1904
Romans ruled the world for almost 1000 years.....i think

the US has always been the "leader"?? The british ruled the world for over 300 years! They colonied the USA and Australia! The US just stayed where they are.


That was a cool article, thanks for that.
It took me 30 minutes to read it!

Jimster, I didn't know there were people in NZ in 1904
There weren't, we were all microbes. We only turned into people last week.

In 1904, the houses didn't come with bathrooms. Our Colorado house was built that year.

Why thank you. I'm originally from New Zealand, that'd probably explain a lot (English being the native language).

Just a fun fact; by 1904 women in New Zealand had suffrage for 8 years

11 years, IIRC. 1893 was Sufferage.

Well, the US has pioneered more things than any other nation I can think of, democracy is a start, gee, could this be something the rest of the world uses. I assumed women's suffrage was another one, and was astonished that it was not so.

Greece pioneered democracy

Romans ruled the world for almost 1000 years.....i think
yes they did

11 years, IIRC. 1893 was Sufferage.
3 years, what's the diff, still were first. It's been something like 15 years since 6th form history :uhoh:

There weren't, we were all microbes. We only turned into people last week.

Unfortunatly some people later than others. :banghead:

Greece Pioneered Modern Democracy???
Obviously I was speaking in reference to the contemporary era... in case you didn't know, there were a ton of things that have been "reinvented" by man. In fact, I will go as far as saying for a time, technology and society moved backward, not forward. It is a misconception that things are always more advanced further along in time. Case in point, cement and concrete left the world for some 1400 years. Democracy for even longer, and America was the pioneer of modern democracy, I hold my original statement.

Well, the US has pioneered more things than any other nation I can think of, democracy is a start, gee, could this be something the rest of the world uses. I assumed women's suffrage was another one, and was astonished that it was not so.

I thought the greeks started democracy. Rock and roll has my mind brainwashed! EVIL!

Oh ya, I knew the romans ruled for 1000 years :D:D

Greece Pioneered Modern Democracy???
Obviously I was speaking in reference to the contemporary era... in case you didn't know, there were a ton of things that have been "reinvented" by man. In fact, I will go as far as saying for a time, technology and society moved backward, not forward. It is a misconception that things are always more advanced further along in time. Case in point, cement and concrete left the world for some 1400 years. Democracy for even longer, and America was the pioneer of modern democracy, I hold my original statement.

nope wrong again. greece was early democracy. then came along the romans. the romans set up modern democracy. study govt. and youll find this out.

Yo, can you not read the "???" that was sarcasim because someone said that Greece started Modern democracy. Oh, and I think YOU need to go study government before you come on here next... the Romans in NO WAY had a Democracy, they had a REPUBLIC, ever heard that word, a DEMOCRACy is a direct participatory government, while a REPUBLIC is a representative participatory government. BTW the word DEMOCRACY has a second meaning... it is a state which practices equality for all, or perhaps all those recognized as Citizens. Now this disappeared from the Earth for a while and did not reappear until 1776, so therefore, if you look at contemporary history, America pioneered it, no where do I find the Romans in contemporary history.
uh, I'm not wrong again, never was wrong, and if you study history you'll find this out.

yes you were wrong, i think you are in need of a history book, or even an encyclopedia. read up on it then return.

Yo, can you not read the "???" that was sarcasim because someone said that Greece started Modern democracy. Oh, and I think YOU need to go study government before you come on here next... the Romans in NO WAY had a Democracy, they had a REPUBLIC, ever heard that word, a DEMOCRACy is a direct participatory government, while a REPUBLIC is a representative participatory government. BTW the word DEMOCRACY has a second meaning... it is a state which practices equality for all, or perhaps all those recognized as Citizens. Now this disappeared from the Earth for a while and did not reappear until 1776, so therefore, if you look at contemporary history, America pioneered it, no where do I find the Romans in contemporary history.
uh, I'm not wrong again, never was wrong, and if you study history you'll find this out.

OH....MY....GOD, the ignorance in this statement is astounding!!!!
Parliamentary democracy was pioneered in Europe hundreds of years before 1776. Have you ever heard of the Magna Carta??
Did you know that England, Iceland and other countries had rudimentary, basic parliaments as far back as the 13th century?

Jeez, be realistic. Democracy in America,1776 only applied if you were white, male and rich enough to own property (land). If you were a woman, non white or poor you were SOL. Now, how is this something Americans should be proud of?

3 years, what's the diff, still were first. It's been something like 15 years since 6th form history :uhoh:

I only remember it because there was a video he had to watch that was made up some hot 7ths from Wellington Girls East :D

Oh, and it's not 7th form anymore...it's yeah 13 :uhoh: It changed while I was in 7th form. I was the last holderoner of the awesome form system.

Honestly, I am very well versed in history, so be very careful who you call ignorant...
Magna Carta, yea, that only gave power to the Barons, aka the aristocracy, this was in no way freedom for all. You just answered it yourself, it only applied to a limited few, but MUCH more limited than in America. To have a say in Magna Carta England, you needed to be BORN noble, but in America, all you had to do was buy land, anyone could do this, oh, and wait, the constitution doesn't say you need land to be free, just to vote. Now, 1776 marked the first time that a Gov did not have a state religion, oh wait, this is freedom, aka Democracy. If you were englnad, you were a Roman Catholic, and later an Anglican. Oh, and YES, 1783 marked the FIRST MODERN CONSTITUTION... now how many nations have one of those today, but, hmmm, who was the first.
Oh, and 300zxtt, come up with some facts besides I'm wrong, you're right.

Honestly, I am very well versed in history, so be very careful who you call ignorant...
Magna Carta, yea, that only gave power to the Barons, aka the aristocracy, this was in no way freedom for all. You just answered it yourself, it only applied to a limited few, but MUCH more limited than in America. To have a say in Magna Carta England, you needed to be BORN noble, but in America, all you had to do was buy land, anyone could do this, oh, and wait, the constitution doesn't say you need land to be free, just to vote. Now, 1776 marked the first time that a Gov did not have a state religion, oh wait, this is freedom, aka Democracy. If you were englnad, you were a Roman Catholic, and later an Anglican. Oh, and YES, 1783 marked the FIRST MODERN CONSTITUTION... now how many nations have one of those today, but, hmmm, who was the first.
Oh, and 300zxtt, come up with some facts besides I'm wrong, you're right.

i told you go read an encyclpedia beofre you make another dumb comment and make yourself look worse. as for your definition of modern, your basing it off the most recent. hell i could go all the way back to hammurabis code and say thats the first modern constitution. your not going to win this . ask any historian. im trying to help you, because right now you're looking like a fool.

Honestly, I am very well versed in history, so be very careful who you call ignorant...
Magna Carta, yea, that only gave power to the Barons, aka the aristocracy, this was in no way freedom for all. You just answered it yourself, it only applied to a limited few, but MUCH more limited than in America. To have a say in Magna Carta England, you needed to be BORN noble, but in America, all you had to do was buy land, anyone could do this, oh, and wait, the constitution doesn't say you need land to be free, just to vote. Now, 1776 marked the first time that a Gov did not have a state religion, oh wait, this is freedom, aka Democracy. If you were englnad, you were a Roman Catholic, and later an Anglican. Oh, and YES, 1783 marked the FIRST MODERN CONSTITUTION... now how many nations have one of those today, but, hmmm, who was the first.
Oh, and 300zxtt, come up with some facts besides I'm wrong, you're right.
Congradulations, you looked up Magna Carta.
But your post is still ignorant.
Read my post again. I never said the Magna Carta was democracy. However, it was the first inkling of a start of a democratic ideal and a limit to the powers of the Monarchy in Western Europe.

To be free in 1776 America.....you couldn't be black, thats for sure.

1776 was the first time there was no state religion? Bullshit. How many times does the Constitution mention God?
'one nation under God' ....
'God has endowed man with certain inalienable rights'
(I'm paraphrasing here, but you see my point.)
Jeez, it's EVEN ON YOUR MONEY! 'IN GOD WE TRUST'!!

Oh, and what does a constitution have to do with democracy?
The Soviet Union had one of the most comprehensive and free constitutions anywhere. They also had 'elections' But that does not mean a hill of beans if it is not put in practice.

Now, tell me there is no Electoral College system in the US and I will believe there is true American democracy.

"Canada passed a law prohibiting poor people from entering the country for any reason.
"


Hmm, you sure on this? Doesn't sound like Canada at all to me.

Ok, you are all fu*king ass*oles don't call me ignorant you id*ots Y don't you go look it up, I did, Looked up "Democracy" in the WORLDBOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA don't EVER f*cking call me ignorant and FYI my Grandfather was a History teacher d*ck. Practical emocracy was not implimented til 1776, blacks don't count becasue they weren't considered human at the time. English unwritten constitutional Monarchy didn't develope until well after this, in fact, the first Democracy in Europe took place, oh, anybody ever heard of a little event called the FRENCH REVOLUTION, ca. 1789, so this was AFTER 1176 no wasn't it. BTW you guys criticize me but have issue no knowledge yoursleves, I already refuted your Magna Carta argument, you said it was the start of modern democracy which it WASN'T (go look it up) and I guess you are not from America because "What does a constitution have to w/ freedom" well, the first 10 amendments, written before the document was ratified, are called the BILL OF RIGHTS, which included FREEDOM OF RELIGION, in 1783, bfore any other state had any such notion. Hammurabi's code, well, that has NOTHING to do w/ the Modern period so Y would you bring that up, I bet you didn't know Hammurabi was an Ammorite? But how would I know I'm ignorant.

you are right, i do agree with you man. the magna crta was NOT the start of modern democracy, it took place WAY BEFORE the magna carta. i already told you ROMANS started modern democracy, while greeks had early democrazy. your grandpa should know this, unless of course he is an elementary history techer. go ask him, our still wrong. i have never called you ignorant tho, just misinformed

Ok, you are all fu*king ass*oles don't call me ignorant you id*ots Y don't you go look it up, I did, Looked up "Democracy" in the WORLDBOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA don't EVER f*cking call me ignorant and FYI my Grandfather was a History teacher d*ck. Practical emocracy was not implimented til 1776, blacks don't count becasue they weren't considered human at the time. English unwritten constitutional Monarchy didn't develope until well after this, in fact, the first Democracy in Europe took place, oh, anybody ever heard of a little event called the FRENCH REVOLUTION, ca. 1789, so this was AFTER 1176 no wasn't it. BTW you guys criticize me but have issue no knowledge yoursleves, I already refuted your Magna Carta argument, you said it was the start of modern democracy which it WASN'T (go look it up) and I guess you are not from America because "What does a constitution have to w/ freedom" well, the first 10 amendments, written before the document was ratified, are called the BILL OF RIGHTS, which included FREEDOM OF RELIGION, in 1783, bfore any other state had any such notion. Hammurabi's code, well, that has NOTHING to do w/ the Modern period so Y would you bring that up, I bet you didn't know Hammurabi was an Ammorite? But how would I know I'm ignorant.

Hey, buddy, are you insecure or something?

No one called YOU ignorant. As for myself, I just said YOUR POSTS are ignorant, but not you.

Hey, if you want to take this personally, and start flaming people, f*ck you. See a shrink, cry to your mommy, I don't care. Just take your flaming sh*t elsewhere.

Myself and others were debating your points, but not attacking you personally.

But you are personally attacking us. (Yes, that is what the "f*cking ass*holes" comment is).

You have not addressed one point in my last post. I guess insulting us is a lot easier than actually forming a logical argument.
BTW your statements are living proof that historical knowledge is not genetic.

All you guys do is keep throwing out flames and rhetorical comments... ok, no more name calling, let's get down to business, everybody go look back at the argument. I stated that 1776 was the start of MODERN DEMOCRACY, defined as democracy in the contemporary era, which is that period of time after the renaissance til present day. NOw, it would be pretty immpossible for the Romans or Greeks to have brought democracy to the modern world consider both of their civilizations existed 1000's of years ago. See, after they were gone, Democracy disappeared from the Earth til 1776, 3000zxtt, you agree w/ me, but now MagicRat thinks democracy was started in the 1200s. But aside from a few miscellaneous facts you guys have not brought anything substantial to the table.
Oh, and my Histort knowledge is lacking??? Ok, so, do you guys know about Ancient Bactria? Or about Scipio Africanus, hmmm? well, do you, or are you just going to insist I have inherited nothing.

All you guys do is keep throwing out flames and rhetorical comments... ok, no more name calling,.

We were not flaming. You were!! Read your posts!! If I was to call you the names going through my head right now, I would be banned.


let's get down to business, everybody go look back at the argument. I stated that 1776 was the start of MODERN DEMOCRACY, defined as democracy in the contemporary era, which is that period of time after the renaissance til present day. NOw, it would be pretty immpossible for the Romans or Greeks to have brought democracy to the modern world consider both of their civilizations existed 1000's of years ago. See, after they were gone, Democracy disappeared from the Earth til 1776, 3000zxtt, you agree w/ me, but now MagicRat thinks democracy was started in the 1200s. But aside from a few miscellaneous facts you guys have not brought anything substantial to the table.
Oh, and my Histort knowledge is lacking??? Ok, so, do you guys know about Ancient Bactria? Or about Scipio Africanus, hmmm? well, do you, or are you just going to insist I have inherited nothing.

Well, I shall bring some substance to this 'argument' instead of name dropping obscure Latin references which are not germaine to this discussion.

The Websters definition of democracy:

"Government in which the supreme power is in the hands of the people, who exercise it directly (absolute or pure democracy) or through their chosen representatives (representative democracy) ; also a community or state with such a government."

Now what do you mean by "modern democracy? "

Websters defines "modern" as :

"Of or characteristic of the present or recent times"

Democracy in 1776 was not modern in that it did not resemble what we have today. Women, the poor and blacks could not vote and could not participate in government. The sole people who could exercise representative democracy in 1776 America was a minority of the population - property owning white men.

This is by definition an "oligarchy", per Websters:

"A government in which the power is in the hands of a few persons or a state having such a government, also the group of persons holding the power in such a state."

Therefore, 1776 America had an OLIGARCHY, not a democracy. Furthermore, it was not 'modern' in that it was measurably and substantially different than what we have in our 'modern' times. Just the simple fact that it is much more inclusive, (all citizens can vote) is proof of this.

Finally, you have not addressed my earlier post; by definition, the Electoral College system that America has, is strictly speaking, not democracy.

Oh and while you are cracking the books in your research look up some English history and the role of their parliament in government, which pre dates 1776 by centuries.

I eagerly await your insightful comment.

We were not flaming. You were!! Read your posts!! If I was to call you the names going through my head right now, I would be banned.



Well, I shall bring some substance to this 'argument' instead of name dropping obscure Latin references which are not germaine to this discussion.

The Websters definition of democracy:

"Government in which the supreme power is in the hands of the people, who exercise it directly (absolute or pure democracy) or through their chosen representatives (representative democracy) ; also a community or state with such a government."

Now what do you mean by "modern democracy? "

Websters defines "modern" as :

"Of or characteristic of the present or recent times"

Democracy in 1776 was not modern in that it did not resemble what we have today. Women, the poor and blacks could not vote and could not participate in government. The sole people who could exercise representative democracy in 1776 America was a minority of the population - property owning white men.

This is by definition an "oligarchy", per Websters:

"A government in which the power is in the hands of a few persons or a state having such a government, also the group of persons holding the power in such a state."

Therefore, 1776 America had an OLIGARCHY, not a democracy. Furthermore, it was not 'modern' in that it was measurably and substantially different than what we have in our 'modern' times. Just the simple fact that it is much more inclusive, (all citizens can vote) is proof of this.

Finally, you have not addressed my earlier post; by definition, the Electoral College system that America has, is strictly speaking, not democracy.

Oh and while you are cracking the books in your research look up some English history and the role of their parliament in government, which pre dates 1776 by centuries.

I eagerly await your insightful comment.

THANK YOU! all im asking is his meaning for "modern", because some will obviously see modern differently