So when someone kidnaps you instead of sending people to rescue you by force we will just wait for the kidnappers to give it all up peacefully. When the kidnappers get tired of "being an island" than maybe eventually they will release you.
Happy Confederate Memorial Day???
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
So when someone kidnaps you instead of sending people to rescue you by force we will just wait for the kidnappers to give it all up peacefully. When the kidnappers get tired of "being an island" than maybe eventually they will release you.
Those photos must be fake. I've been told there were no more than 50 1/6 seditionists.
Trad, did you just argue that slavery should have lasted longer?
Photo shopping for sure.
To say that Lincoln was racist is to judge him by our standards rather than that of the times he lived in. Even most abolitionists didn’t really see slaves as being equal to white men, but they did view them as people who had rights.
Racism is certainly one of those terms that, as you indicate, needs to be put into context. This is a big reason why I'm against the removal of statues, monuments, likenesses of some of our nation's leaders; or the elimination of some of the arts that may have elements deemed 'racist' by today's standards (e.g., "Gone With The Wind").
I don’t want to remove the statues entirely, just move them into museums or memorials. The problem with them is that they weren’t created and put in place with he best of intentions. If you look at the timeline of when most of them were made, they just happen to coincide with spikes of racist behavior, Klan movements, etc.
“To say that Lincoln/Confederates were racist is to judge them by our standards rather than that of the times they lived in.”
Doesn’t sound quite so virtuous when you apply the standards equally, now does it? 🤔
Well, if you’re judging them equally... one side thought that slavery was wrong, and the other did. Not sure what your point is.
He did want to free them and send them to Central America to start their own country. Now, whether that was racism or just his belief that blacks and whites couldn't live together is another question.
The country of Liberia in western Africa was started with that thought in mind. A lot of freed slaves migrated to there in the early-to-mid 1800's. It was a product of the American Colonization Society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia
It's really a memorial day for dead Democrats who fought against our coutry.
Democrats started the KKK and took away African American rights after reconstruction ended.
Democrats started the KKK and took away African American rights after reconstruction ended.
Yet Politifact confirms that the Democratic Party honored the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan when he spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, shortly after the Klan was founded.
This brings us back to the original question, did Democrats start the KKK?
Yes!
It was founded as a political organization to intimidate black and Republican voters in the south during reconstruction after the Civil War.
According to History.com:
The KKK was a political tool used by Democrats to help the Democratic Party win elections.
And that is a FACT.
This brings us back to the original question, did Democrats start the KKK?
Yes!
It was founded as a political organization to intimidate black and Republican voters in the south during reconstruction after the Civil War.
According to History.com:
There were two political parties… and the Ku Klux Klan aimed to influence elections AGAINST the Republican party.
The KKK was a political tool used by Democrats to help the Democratic Party win elections.
And that is a FACT.
There has been a LOT of history since then. The Dixiecrats jumped to the GOP and took it over after the Democrats passed Civil Rights legislation in the 1960's. I guess you missed class on that day?
LOL
This is the check mate to "state's rights".Anyone who argues otherwise is just making up crap. One needs to look no further than the "Cornerstone Speech".
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.
Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Those that find Lincoln bigoted, are also correct in my opinion, as he openly sought the relocation of African Americans to Africa. I don't buy the "Lincoln the tyrant" hyperbole as war time presidents that win wars make some difficult decisions. A tyrant would have executed all of the southern leaders and jailed the armies....Lincoln was not a tyrant, he was a bigot that recognized slavery as an abhorrent practice and also an economic anomaly that could not be sustained by the union. I'm sorry if your kin folk believed slavery to be a natural condition. It's better to learn from this and recognize when you're on the wrong side of history, which, apparently, is quite hard for a third of the nation.
WRONG!
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader – not President Lyndon Johnson – was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.
In the Senate, Dirksen had no trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for passage. On the Democrat side, the Senate leadership did support the bill, while the chief opponents were Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC), Al Gore (D-TN) and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Senator Byrd, whom Democrats still call “the conscience of the Senate,” filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for fourteen straight hours. At a meeting held in his office, Dirksen modified the bill so it could be passed despite Democrat opposition. He strongly condemned the Democrat-led 57-day filibuster: “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
I don't remember Ervin, Gore, and Bryd being Republicans! Because they were always Democrats!
The struggle for civil rights was not finished, however, as most southern states remained under the control of segregationist Democrat governors, such as George Wallace (D-AL), Orval Faubus (D-AR) and Lester Maddox (D-GA). Full enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not arrive until the Republican political ascendancy in the South during the 1980s.
This is a fallacy the Democrat media pushes.
That is why you search on DuckDuckgo not google or yahoo for the real facts
That is why you search on DuckDuckgo not google or yahoo for the real facts
Is that why all modern-day nationalists and white supremacists run as a Republican, or, at least, always support Republicans? What does DuckDuckGo say about that?
This must be why the GOP always claims to be the "Party of Lincoln."
LOL
Full enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not arrive until the Republican political ascendancy in the South during the 1980s.
Yeah, they found their national leaders, especially the guy calling out welfare queens.
You are so misinformed as to where we are today and why.
quack, quack
There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometimes racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “****** bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a ******.”
You have presidents from 40 years ago how about today?
NPR
'Can he be against the Constitution?'
Biden's early interest in diversity did not prevent him from parting ways with the mainstream civil rights movement on a major issue. After his election to the Senate in 1972, he became a critic of desegregating schools through busing.
The Supreme Court had outlawed segregated schools with its Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954. The struggle to enforce it started in the Deep South, and later moved north — where schools weren't legally segregated but neighborhoods, and thus neighborhood schools, were effectively so.
Starting in the 1970s, judges ordered busing as a remedy, sending Black students to white-dominated schools, and sometimes the reverse. Historian Matthew Delmont, author of Why Busing Failed, says white residents resisted even in cities known for liberal politics. "It was a classic liberal position to say, 'I'm in favor of school integration in Little Rock or Montgomery and Selma, but not so much in Boston, Chicago, New York or Wilmington.' "
'Can he be against the Constitution?'
Biden became a leader among liberal lawmakers who tried for years to craft legislation limiting judicial authority to order busing. He even talked of amending the Constitution. He said busing wasn't working, and liberals should admit this even if it aligned them uncomfortably with "the racists" who resisted integration in the South. "There is academic ferment against it," he said in a 1975 NPR interview. "There are young Blacks and young white leaders against it. There is social unrest which highlights it."
His stance drew criticism from the only Black senator at the time, Edward Brooke of Massachusetts. "He can be against busing," Brooke said, "but can he be against the Constitution?"
Delaware State President Allen, born in 1970, said he was bussed for years and is skeptical of the concept. "The notion that you can simply put a Black kid with a white kid, and somehow that will make the Black kid perform better, says something about what you think of the Black kid." Activist Coker says she was part of "a very small group that opposed busing." She urged Biden instead to support fair housing laws since integrated neighborhoods would produce integrated schools. He did.
Historian Delmont says Biden was "right" to focus on housing, but "you can't say you're in favor of housing integration and not also be fighting for school integration at the same time.
NPR
'Can he be against the Constitution?'
Biden's early interest in diversity did not prevent him from parting ways with the mainstream civil rights movement on a major issue. After his election to the Senate in 1972, he became a critic of desegregating schools through busing.
The Supreme Court had outlawed segregated schools with its Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954. The struggle to enforce it started in the Deep South, and later moved north — where schools weren't legally segregated but neighborhoods, and thus neighborhood schools, were effectively so.
Starting in the 1970s, judges ordered busing as a remedy, sending Black students to white-dominated schools, and sometimes the reverse. Historian Matthew Delmont, author of Why Busing Failed, says white residents resisted even in cities known for liberal politics. "It was a classic liberal position to say, 'I'm in favor of school integration in Little Rock or Montgomery and Selma, but not so much in Boston, Chicago, New York or Wilmington.' "
'Can he be against the Constitution?'
Biden became a leader among liberal lawmakers who tried for years to craft legislation limiting judicial authority to order busing. He even talked of amending the Constitution. He said busing wasn't working, and liberals should admit this even if it aligned them uncomfortably with "the racists" who resisted integration in the South. "There is academic ferment against it," he said in a 1975 NPR interview. "There are young Blacks and young white leaders against it. There is social unrest which highlights it."
His stance drew criticism from the only Black senator at the time, Edward Brooke of Massachusetts. "He can be against busing," Brooke said, "but can he be against the Constitution?"
POLITICS
Biden Supported A Constitutional Amendment To End Mandated Busing In 1975
Studies eventually showed busing helped Black students without harming white students. But it never grew popular among white voters, and the Biden campaign referred NPR to Black supporters in Wilmington who also opposed it.Delaware State President Allen, born in 1970, said he was bussed for years and is skeptical of the concept. "The notion that you can simply put a Black kid with a white kid, and somehow that will make the Black kid perform better, says something about what you think of the Black kid." Activist Coker says she was part of "a very small group that opposed busing." She urged Biden instead to support fair housing laws since integrated neighborhoods would produce integrated schools. He did.
Historian Delmont says Biden was "right" to focus on housing, but "you can't say you're in favor of housing integration and not also be fighting for school integration at the same time.
Take a look at these 2 election maps from 1960 and 1964, keeping in mind that 1964 was the year the Civil Rights Act was passed.
Notice anything peculiar about the southern "democratic" states in the 2 elections?
Did a horde of republicans suddenly move South in 1964?
There must have been a helluva lot of election fraud going on in those states in 1964 I guess.
I think some historians refer to this as the repolarization of the US voting electorate.
Could be. They’ll always be the War Party to me, though.
And they don’t seem to be any more or less racist than the Dems, imo.
Now talk about the good Nazis and how Hitler would have tuckered himself out eventually and faded away.
The other follow up is how long that would have taken, for slavery to die on its own. It certainly wasn’t going anywhere anytime soon in 1860.
I don't have an issue with it. You're free to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else.
