Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: A Weblog

Dumas Malone is thorough and meticulous when caring to be, but try to come to understand the psychological and social conflicts that should have been addressed by Jefferson on slavery and there is no cogent analysis. The failure to address the matters of race thoroughly and honestly leave much to be desired in such a biographer. So, we come to understand too little of the times and Jefferson.

In all honesty, I think both Hamilton and Jefferson would cringe and then sigh.

How little we know!

Well, the final explanation of Brad's animus against Jefferson makes a good deal more sense to me than the wild projections of revolutionary rigor and fervor into Alex's post.

Alex does not seem to be saying that broken eggs in the name of principle are an acceptable cost in _all_ cases: he was saying that in real political predicaments, there must always be a balancing act between principles of rigorous revolutionary purity and "historical necessity" (Robespierre, Lenin) and judgments based on the larger picture and on what has happened already, which require caution, constraint and ad hoc responses bound to respect what exists (Burke). He's not arguing that Jefferson should have (or did) stay on the revolutionary bus all the way over the cliffs of the Terror, nor is he arguing that the larger "just cause" of both revolutions justified every single atrocity perpetrated in the course of either one. He's just saying that it's awfully easy to criticize Jefferson for getting it wrong from our perspective after the fact, and that there's not a "consistent rule" that the _players at the time_ could have used to firmly distinguish the French descent into terror from the American bumbling into stability at some specific moment -- though eventually, any thinker or politician of substance did reach the conclusion that the course of the two revolutions was in fact different, and that the French path led to catastrophe.

Thus, it's fair enough for Brad to criticize Jefferson for remaining emotionally attached to the French revolutionary cause longer than he should have, (certainly, knowing what we know; less certainly, knowing what he could have known), but Malone's not unreasonable defense of Jefferson's attachment is that he restricted it to his private letters, and that his public actions actually were much more tempered (willingly or not). Since we judge a political leader primarily by his public actions, it seems fair to give these greater weight....just as we judge the Treasury by its policies, not by the peculiar attachment some of its agents have to Hamilton -- some of whose policies were pretty radical, too, no?

Really, Brad, you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding Alex's argument here.

Maybe the problem is that you want to discuss Jefferson's support or non-support of the French Revolution in terms of one mob killing. That Jefferson didn't condemn it forthrightly as an evil and dangerous act is certainly worth noting. However, Alex is right that things as bad as that one killing took place in revolutionary America. Have you ever read about the abuse during the Revolution of conscientious objectors in Pennsylvania by both the revolutionary legislature, and more to the point, by unelected and unconstitutional Committees of Public Safety?

R.R. Palmer in his great *Age of the Democratic Revolution* pointed out that the % of Americans who fled the country as a result of the revolution, in many cases unwillingly, was the same as the % of emigres from revolutionary France, many of whom were hardly reactionaries.

If you want to slam Jefferson as being less than we'd like him to have been, just look at his waffling and hypocritical stance on slavery.

But this could be said about almost any white patriot of the time. Even the men who wrote the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, banning slavery there, were probably most concerned to 1. Take land from the Indians 2. Give the land to white men and 3. keep blacks and their owners out.

P.S. the Quaker community which was the core of true anti-slavery feeling was also the main target of abuse by revolutionary gangs.

Possibly Alex Tabarrok needs to imagine a little more thoroughly how fierce the "terror" of the French Revolution became. Brad understands. The argument Alex is making strikes me somewhat like that of a character out of Dostoevsky. There is no justification for the "terror."

I think that Brad's slippery slope argument about the French revolution should be treated like every other slippery-slope argument.

Political entities are often murderous at their foundation, or when otherwise-irresolvable factional disputes are decided (e.g. in Italian republics), or when rebellions are suppressed. Some more than others. To cherry-pick one pretty bad case and identify it with a much, much worse case in order to criticize a man who gave verbal support to the first strikes me as too big a stretch.

(The bloody foundation-event of the US wasn't the Revolution, of course, but the Civil War. It would be interesting to search the literature for contemporary European arguments that the Civil War proved that the American Revolution was a bloody mistake. I believe that Lincoln also had some kind of belief in the sacrificial cleansing power of bloodshed).

For ideological reasons which are mostly bad, the French Revolution gets special negative treatment. If you looked ate the English repression of the Jacobite rebellion (culminating in the battle of Culloden) or quite a number of events in the subjugation of Ireland, you'd find plenty of massacres. Somehow this is not thought to delegitimize the British Crown, except among Catholic Irish. But the Jacobins are often thought to have delegitimized the French Revolution.

Marx said that the White Terror is always bloodier than the Red. Probably not quite true, but for many, White Terrors are less frightening than revolutionary terrors.

Having said all that, in this case the slippery slope did not turn out, historically, to be completely imaginary, and if you draw a line from Jefferson through Marx it probably does end up with Lenin and Stalin.

It still strikes me as a big stretch to make too much of what people do at the tops of slippery slopes. Because if you do that, eventually you will end up.....

So John Adams' view of liberty was that you can have it as long as you don't use it to criticize the government he was leading?

The French Revolution had severed heads on pikes the very first day it started and went downhill from there. There is nothing comparable in the American Revolution, and certainly nothing comparable to the Terror.

According to Napoleon, if one wants to understand the French Revolution, one should watch Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro.

With DVD's, you can get subtitles in English, so you can follow the plot.

So the next time a Republican accuses you of class warfare, you can break into an aria.

And that will confound him, for sure.

One thing the French revolution bought France is clearcut seperation of Church and State, I think. I wonder if it is also possible to trace back France's health care system, say, to the nature of its revolution. Can we do the same for America's lack of a universal health care system? I simply know way too little to answer these questions, but they do seem interesting to me.

Uh, Brad, I think Sukarno was at Bandung, not Suharto.

If the American Revolution had been an argument entirely among Americans, you might well have seen more terror. Certainly the divisive nature of the debate in Pennsylvania produced some extreme measures against people who were not loyal enough.

That the Terror is the whole of the French Revolution is a common but mistaken notion. Even while the Terror was raging, there were people -- federalists -- who rejected both Terror from Paris and the restoration of the monarchy and the old regime.

Is the American Revolution correctly characterized by the revolutionaries' unwillingness to abolish slavery in the new federation? And by that fact alone?

I worked for the Department of Defense and laud the Jefferson who tried to completely shut down the Navy, mohtball all the ships, pay off the enlisted and put the officers on half-pay.

Here is the rule: 1. Support no uprising which is an emotional outpouring of social resentment, otherwise known as a "peasant revolution." These result in much bloodshed,but no real forward steps, because the revolutionaries are incapable of self-governance or even governance of their selves.
2. Support all uprisings which are prosecuted by mature, self-governing adults protesting the installation by external forces of senseless rules and of untrained officials to govern them. Such a rebellion will be able to mount productive self-rule upon its successful completion, while minimizing unnecessary destruction of property and loss of life. (OK, some people got out of hand, but by and large the rules hold.)

Eloy

Um, Eloy --

How about "Support all nice, good revolutions, and not bad evil revolutions"? Your criteria are not clear enough to use before-the-fact.

In fact, much of the outrage and extremism in the French Revolution was urban based. In 1793-4, when half of France was revolting against the Republican government, there was terror in the countryside, especially in the Vendee, committed both by Republicans and Monarchists. However, the attack on the Bastille, the October Days, the overthrow of the Monarchy, and the political purges that most people associate with the Terror were Parisian movements, and the Parisian press and Parisian clubs and Parisian militias were the engines of revolutionary radicalism.

Our views of Jefferson are greatly influenced by the fact that we have turned him into an icon. In other words, he was a very great man because, otherwise, he would not be on Mount Rushmore.

Jefferson was a rhetorical giant. And he was probably the most intelligent of the great figures of the Revolution. But they understood him and his limitations. You want a Declaration that stirs the heart even though some of what stirs the heart is stuff that we don't quite mean ("...all men are endowed by their Creator...")? Give it to Jefferson. You want to both invent and explain an entirely new form of government? Give the laboring oars to Hamilton and Madison? Write a Consitution? Give Madison the lead. Lead the nation through a revolution? Washington.

Others of that generation surpassed Jefferson in moral quality. All of them, for instance, knew that slavery would one day have to be dealt with. The Constitution puts the issue off explicitly for a generation. That leaves us with what they did personally.

Washington freed his slaves at his death.

Jefferson had children with Sally Heming. That relationship was either coercive or it was not. we will never know. If it was coercive, Jefferson is a smaller man for having coerced her. If it was not, Jefferson is the smaller man for not freeing his children and grandchildren, even at his death.

Partly I rank the Founding Fathers by considering how they would have stood when the one great unanswered question of the Constitution was finally decided. Where would they have stood on the Kansas-Nebraska Act and on secession?

I think Washington would have passed that test. Franklin, Adams, Hamilton would pass easily partly because they had no significant personal stake in slavery. Madison would have squeaked by, I think. Monroe, I'm uncertain though he was less swayed by Jefferson than Madison.

Jefferson, I think, would have been one of the great fire-brands stirring the secessionist and state's rights cauldron. Where Jeff Davis was reluctant but determined, Jefferson would have been the fiery goad.

Or, put another way, I think a very good, albeit conjectural, case can be made that Jefferson died before he could destroy his own reputation.

Whoah, dude, what is with this passage?

"I find myself more of their temper than of Jefferson's--more of a Burkean who believes that liberty must be slowly grown rather than suddenly conquered."

I grant that Jefferson said foolish things about the French Revolution long after it had become a nightmare. I think he must have felt some responsibility to defend it as a necessary movement toward liberty in oppressive monarchies, even if it had turned into a horror.

But he DID TOO write that the preferred course would have been a gradual movement towards democracy, starting with changing the French monarchy into a constitutional monarchy. A funny thing for an Anglophobe to write, since I think England was the prime example of that kind of thing back then. It will take me awhile to find the passage, but it is there someplace in the Portable Jefferson, or the American Library (or whatever it's called) Jefferson. Now, this is something he wrote in retrospect, and I suppose some Dept of Treasury snoot could say Jefferson was just trying to make amends for saying foolish things about the Terror. However, remember that Jefferson was there at the initial stages of the revolution, and even had several evening meetings at his residence to try to broker some kind of solution. Now, is there any evidence at all that his actions at that time were consistent with someone who was eager to push things to an sudden drastic revolutionary crisis? OK, I will have to go look it up, but my memory is that he did not, and I guess I will try to return in a day or so with details. (potential egg on my face here, but I am pretty sure he acted as a moderate in those negotiations.)

I also think you are confusing Jefferson's realism regarding the difficulty of effecting social change in societies such as pre-revolutionary France, with some kind of secret subliminal approval of revolutionary terror. In what society has such dramatic change not taken oceans of blood, using Jefferson's phrase? (or was if rivers of blood?) Maybe England, if you forget several civil wars -or are those long enough ago that some kind of statute of limitations is in effect?

But I will refer you to Hamilton, who also had no illusions about finding an easy way out in some circumstances. In one his speeches to the state ratifying conventions, he referred to the irresistible power of the mass of the population -they were more powerful than commonly supposed, he said, and would overcome any attempt to resist them if oppression became severe enough, and any opportunity to effect a change occurred. The only question was how to control the inevitable power of the mass of people. Would a way be found for them to act in circumstances where they had a chance to decide issues calmly and wisely, or would it happen when they would act out of fear, hatred and avarice, or under the influence of a would-be tyrant?

So, in being realistic, was Hamiltion also advocating terror?

And what is Gallatin, anyway, chopped liver, a proto-Snow? Don't get carried away, or I'll start calling you Prof McDelongold.

I'm so darn upset, and I tire of stomping on my three cornered hat. I will now reveal that Hamilton was really very close to Jefferson in his free market ideology, but only seemed to differ because of the evil influence of Tenche Coxe. If it weren't for that Coxe demon, the Report on Manufactures would have read like a Jeffersonian tribute to laissez faire. I know this is true, because I read it in something put out by Richard Armey's think tank. So what do think of your Hamilton now?

PS, I think ursus is dealing in a great imponderable.

Someone noted above that Adams' moderation and love of liberty allowed him to sign the sedition act. I believe he also wrote "equality, how I hate the word," and I doubt Brad agrees with him on that one.

Jefferson did not write "endowed by their creator" he wrote "from that equal creation are endowed" the text was changed by an amendment.

Jefferson's will did free his slaves. However, since Jefferson died bankrupt, they were seized by his creditors.

Jean Pillippe, the clear cut separation of church and state was achieved, I think, around 1905. 80 years after the storming of the Bastille, the church provided almost all schooling in France. I think the clear cut division arose in France because the Catholic church was unwilling to compromise and the republic (the Third republic) had to fight it.
Sweden and Germany did not have great successful revolutions (according the the Swedish constitution the king rules by divine right of kings). However, they introduced the welfare state. France did not.

Ursus is not only dealing in imponderables, but is doing so with no trace of doubt. Monroe argued that slavery was a key to functioning democracy. How Ursus imagines he might have come around to opposing slavery is beyond me, but I admit that I can't predict what people would have done.

I think at the State Department they manly feel honor bound to defend Ben Franklin.

Uh, make that mainly, not manly--not that there is anything wrong with that.

I think Prof. DeLong dislikes Jefferson for the wrong reasons.

The real problem with Jefferson was in his behaviour as President -- what a W-like figure he was.

I suggest the small but damning Jefferson And Civil Liberties by Leonard Levy.

Jefferson's commanding general was James Wilkinson, whom Jefferson knew to be not only massively corrupt in the garden-variety way, but actually on the payroll of the King of Spain as a spy and therefore a traitor. Wilkinson also ran New Orleans and Louisiana Territory int he way that Bremer ran Iraq. But Jefferson took all this in stride because tolerating Wilkinson meant that he could try to destroy Aaron Burr. Not that he *needed* to destroy Burr, whose political career was already history, but because he wanted to apparently just be vindictive.

It's been years since I've read the book (though it is excellently re-told in Vidal's Burr), but Jefferson thoroughly disgraced himself and the Presidency during that trial.

Jefferson's fault isn't that he cheered revolutions but that when he got power he often behaved as nearly as counter-revolutionary as ..Hamilton. Yuk!

***

There's supposed to be a programme tonight on the History Channel about the Burr duel that looks to be good. Vidal's supposed to be in on the discussion which should curtail the inevitable Hamilton hagiography at least somewhat.

It looks like Jefferson's characteristic flaw was that he couldn't admit to a mistake. AFAIK, he never changed his mind on the Terror, his vendetta against Burr or his conflict to Marshall. He did famously get back on good terms with Adams, though.

In his big conflicts with Marshall, Jefferson lost every round (Marbury, Burr trial, possibly Chase impeachment), to the benefit of Jefferson's historical reputation.

Adrian, Patrick, whoever you are -- that's not funny.

I'm guessing the last entry, hopefully deleted by the time you read this, was spam.

It's clear that a number of posters don't understand the chronological sequence of the French Revolution, or what actually happened. I recommend LeFebvre's books on the subject.

If you a have a perspective that lets you see the forest, most of this thread is a bunch of people clustered around two trees, which they are examining with the rapt attention of the blind men feeling the elephant.

In fact, almost all of the momentous events of the founding of the nation took place in less time than has elapsed since Nixon's second electoral victory. How much, in contrast, have we accomplished in that amount of time? Have we created any bulwarks of good government? Has the national intellect improved?

Frankly, I fear it ill-behooves any of us to criticize men like Jefferson or Franklin, certainly at least until we understand some of what actually happened.

"One thing the French revolution bought France is clearcut seperation of Church and State, I think. I wonder if it is also possible to trace back France's health care system, say, to the nature of its revolution. Can we do the same for America's lack of a universal health care system? I simply know way too little to answer these questions, but they do seem interesting to me."

Jean-Philippe Stijns: The French Revolution focused more on 'equality' (of 'freedom, equality and fraternity'), and we (The American Revolution) focused more on 'freedom'.

Freedom and equality seem to be the same things, but it depends in what sense you mean them (in the sense of entitlements and redistribution, they are polar opposites). The primacy we gave to freedom I think was, and is much more effective than trying to crusade for equality. (I would also deny that we 'lack' a universal healthcare system, as I deny that we 'need' it, but I don't want to get into that argument. ;))

I agree with serial catwalker, and I have to admit that my own memory of the sequence of events in the French Revolution is a little hazy -but it is frightening and depressing reading. I will try to find an outline somewhere. I'll dip back into the quagmire easy and slow.

I must say I am disappointed that so many posters here seem to have very stereotypical views of the US Founders: Jefferson was a proto-W; Hamilton was a counter revolutionary; Jefferson, Madison and Monroe can be given grades on slavery which will sum up their correctness on the matter. Better watch out, or soon you will be down to George Will's level of ridiculous and dishonest one-dimensional stereotypes. They were all fallible human beings, and their views were far more sophisticated and complex than anything that can be represented in a few flip lines. And that is consistent with saying that adopting policy for the US today on the basis of the stereotypical caricature of any one of their positions may be completely inadequate.

Was Robert Waldmann addressing me in his comment re "great, successful" revolutions and welfare states? I don't see what that has to do with democracy, they are not the same thing at all. Germany started a welfare state long before it became a democracy, and is anyone willing to argue that Germany's progress to democracy was smooth and easy and bloodless?

I am surprised that there is some archaic and completely irrelevant language about the divine right of kings in the Swedish constitution. Sweden's political history and culture are not like France's at all. It is true that Sweden imported the idea of hereditary democracy for a few centuries, and I suppose they imported the idea of the divine right of kings as a kind of decorative rationale. Sweden made an early move to a fairly modern form of constitutional monarchy, but it was after the domestic status of the hereditary Swedish monarchy was very seriously weakened after the country's disastrous defeat in the Northern War. And Sweden certainly was not one of the countries to develop the welfare state. It was a miserably impoverished country from the early 1800s until shortly after the turn of the last century, and could never have afforded anything like a welfare state, which was a post-WW II development. The only social welfare policy they could afford was mass emigration to someplace else -what was it, I think a quarter of the population left in the late 1800s. Sweden had politically committed itself to the idea in the 1930s, but only had US New Deal style legislation by the late 1930's.

Anyway, I didn't say all countries had to have bloody revolutions, but said that certain countries with certain socio-economic conditions might find political development very difficult without them. And I think it is a fact that the US Founders had very little concrete advice for how to find a smooth way for those cases. They were practical men who were focused on problems getting the US started on its way, and the US had different problems than France.

I meant to type
"It is true that Sweden imported the idea of hereditary **monarchy** (not democracy!) for a few centuries."

I hadn't realized that cats needed walking.

Sweden's welfare and social state policies begun to be implemented in the 30's, after a lot of striking and wayfinding - the strikes were actually almost as expensive to capitalists as raising wages, so why not just give in a bit? A consensus was born. The country had escaped the horrors of the Great War and now there was political will: it kept industrialising and the depression was cut short thanks to the new policies, and afterwards it made bucketloads of gold from selling iron to nazis. The bulk of social democracy was implemented in the 60's.
The 19th century and early 20th century were awful, though.

jml comments that the discussion of the Founding Fathers is simplistic. He notes, "their views were far more sophisticated and complex than anything that can be represented in a few flip lines."

True. However if one takes on their actions rather than their views, the judgments are perhaps easier. Washington owned slaves. Franklin owned slaves though much earlier than the Revolutionary period. Both can be cited as taking actions that surpass those of Jefferson, Monroe and Madison.

Another comment noted that I was being too optimistic saying the Monroe might have come around on the slavery issue. That is probably true. All of them had Plato to fall back on. He said slavery was a necessary element of any stable state.

However, some great men of that generation moved away from that idea and I think it is a significant point on which they can be divided and judged.

Rob:

Slaves apart (a big exception I admit), Americans already had, before their revolution, the equality that the first wave of French revolutionaries craved.

There were no nobles (except imported British governors) and no bishops, and just about every free man could vote, despite property qualifications, because property was so widely held.

That is why equality was the bigger issue in France.

Jean-Philippe Stijns: The French Revolution focused more on 'equality' (of 'freedom, equality and fraternity'), and we (The American Revolution) focused more on 'freedom'.

http://www.9sf.cn/index.htm

4057 really nicely done. i hope all works well in timefree credit report

8360 http://www.briana-banks-dot.com for Briana Banks movies. or if you would rather diecast here.

8519 http://online-poker.order.gb.com heres is the place to play online poker for real dough.

3645 http://online-poker.order.gb.com heres is the place to play online poker for real dough.

2917 http://www.texas-hold-em-w.com online card room for texas hold em for your pleasure.

I like walking

I like walking

56 http://www.roulette-w.com click here to play roulette online.

I like getting emails from people I know, makes me feel better every morning.

Awesome sentiment! I totally agree with you!

6974 http://www.online-poker-big.com check out this online poker site!

While I realise I maybe be out of the topic, I just found an incredible lyric site featuring hundreds of thousands of lyrics.
If you wanna bring back some happy memories you should stop by to lyric lovers.

5213 http://www.casino-games-i.com click fro casino games online.

4780 http://www.casino-online-i.com the best online casinos on the web.

1130 http://www.play-poker-i.com

444 http://www.caribbean-poker-web.com very fun

mortgage leads

8708 Very well said in the first place! http://www.online-poker-net.com

5517 How can this all be as nice? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com

5687 http://www.texas-hold-em-i.com play texas hold em online here.

7285 http://www.e-texas-hold-em.com

texas hold em

890 http://www.rapid-debt-consolidation.com

consolidate debt

The fundamental sense of freedom is freedom from chains, from imprisonment, from enslavement by others. The rest is extension of this sense, or else metaphor.

Happy to read this, that is great guys!

travel
online gambling
finances
homes
internet
health
shopping
insurance
education
careers
entertainment
business
internet marketing
autos
romance
You guys may find interesting these links.

自動車・香水などを紹介します。

3シリーズ
http://shop1.seo-asia.com
ヘアクリーム
http://shop2.seo-asia.com
アイブロウ
http://shop3.seo-asia.com
シャネル
http://shop4.seo-asia.com
アルマーニ
http://shop5.seo-asia.com
エスティローダー
http://shop6.seo-asia.com
ファーミングコスメ
http://shop7.seo-asia.com
レガシィ
http://shop8.seo-asia.com
アナスイ
http://shop9.seo-asia.com
5シリーズ
http://shop10.seo-asia.com
エリザベスアーデン
http://shop11.seo-asia.com
ランコム
http://shop12.seo-asia.com
ステージア
http://shop13.seo-asia.com
アルファード
http://shop14.seo-asia.com
クラウン
http://shop15.seo-asia.com
アランドロン
http://shop16.seo-asia.com
インバーター
http://shop17.seo-asia.com
スカイライン
http://shop18.seo-asia.com
フォレスター
http://shop19.seo-asia.com
美顔器
http://shop20.seo-asia.com

自動車・香水などを紹介します。

アナスイ
http://www1.aerobag.net
スパナ
http://www2.aerobag.net
パンツ
http://www3.aerobag.net
ボトル・ケース・携帯小物
http://www4.aerobag.net
クラウン
http://www5.aerobag.net
ハイエース
http://www6.aerobag.net
スカイライン
http://www7.aerobag.net
インプレッサ
http://www8.aerobag.net
レガシィ
http://www9.aerobag.net
ランサーエボリューション
http://www1.allgolds.com
フェアレディZ
http://www2.allgolds.com
ステージア
http://www3.allgolds.com
ベルサーチ
http://www4.allgolds.com

Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be proficient enough in the art of reasoning already. But I observe that this satisfaction is limited to one own ratiocination, and does not extend to that of other men.

自動車・香水などを紹介します。

http://shop80.seo-asia.com
メルセデス・ベンツ
http://shop81.seo-asia.com
三菱
http://shop82.seo-asia.com
マツダ
http://shop83.seo-asia.com
ホンダ
http://shop84.seo-asia.com
日産
http://shop85.seo-asia.com
SLK
http://shop86.seo-asia.com
Cクラス
http://shop87.seo-asia.com
キャンピングカー
http://shop88.seo-asia.com
ゴルフ
http://shop89.seo-asia.com
日除け用品
http://shop90.seo-asia.com
ワゴンR
http://shop91.seo-asia.com
ムーヴ
http://shop92.seo-asia.com
ミラ
http://shop93.seo-asia.com
AMG
http://shop94.seo-asia.com
ミニ
http://shop95.seo-asia.com
ケンゾー
http://shop96.seo-asia.com
Eクラス
http://shop97.seo-asia.com
ポータブルナビ
http://shop98.seo-asia.com
トップ・ベースコート
http://shop99.seo-asia.com
ケア用品
http://shop100.seo-asia.com
バッテリー
http://shop101.seo-asia.com

ライブチャット
http://livechat.seo-asia.com/
ライブチャット市場
http://livechat.seo-asia.com/livechat_market.html
ライブチャット技術
http://livechat.seo-asia.com/livechat_tech.html

Great site !
Really enjoyed the posts!

Hi! You did a nice job on creating
this website!
Good stuff! Keep it up! See you!:-)
Keep up this great resource.

Fantastic website you have here.
It was exactly what I was looking for!!

Vivid Site

nice site!

Hi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
Thank you very much!
Greetings from me!!

Keep it up, guys

cool page!

This blog is just too good to be true

Well Done! keep it up!

NIce Feature Site