151 years ago today: Democrats founded and staffed the Ku Klux Klan

[Syriusly]

On Dec. 24, 1865, Democrats in the American South formed the Ku Klux Klan as a means of keeing uppity blacks in their place. They attacked the blacks, and any white Republicans who defended or support them, lynching and killing them when possible. Democrat support for, and membership in, the KKK continues to this day, with theDemocrat attacking, insulting, and pillorying blacks who dared to espouse viewpoints the Democrats disagree with.

-----------------------------------------------------------

KKK founded - Dec 24, 1865 - HISTORY.com

151 years ago KKK founded
December 24, 2016

In Pulaski, Tennessee, a group of Confederate veterans convenes to form a secret society that they christen the “Ku Klux Klan.” The KKK rapidly grew from a secret social fraternity to a paramilitary force bent on reversing the federal government’s progressive Reconstruction Era-activities in the South, especially policies that elevated the rights of the local African American population.

The name of the Ku Klux Klan was derived from the Greek word kyklos, meaning “circle,” and the Scottish-Gaelic word “clan,” which was probably chosen for the sake of alliteration. Under a platform of philosophized white racial superiority, the group employed violence as a means of pushing back Reconstruction and its enfranchisement of African Americans. Former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest was the KKK’s first grand wizard; in 1869, he unsuccessfully tried to disband it after he grew critical of the Klan’s excessive violence.

Most prominent in counties where the races were relatively balanced, the KKK engaged in terrorist raids against African Americans and white Republicans at night, employing intimidation, destruction of property, assault, and murder to achieve its aims and influence upcoming elections. In a few Southern states, Republicans organized militia units to break up the Klan. In 1871, the Ku Klux Act passed Congress, authorizing President Ulysses S. Grant to use military force to suppress the KKK. The Ku Klux Act resulted in nine South Carolina counties being placed under martial law and thousands of arrests.

So? Anyone who understands history will be able to put this into the right context. Anyone who just simply has a ridiculous agenda and plays the bullshit partisan game doesn't care.

What "context" is that? That democrats were racists?

In 1865 in context of modern sensibilities- both Republicans and Democrats were racists.

Neither party considered African Americans to be truly equal.

 

[Pogo]

Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

From a strategical POV one of the worst political decisions ever.

They shoulda gone with Margaret Chase Smith. That woulda made it a contest.

 

[jc456]

Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

johnson hated civil rights. No matter how you wish to spin it. He did it for one thing and one thing only. political. The issue with demoturds started with him. Kennedy was a good conservative, Johnson hated civil rights. I still believe that johnson was involved with Kennedy's death.

Obummer spoke into this in 2014. You should go read at

Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"
"Now, like any of us, he was not a perfect man," Obama said in his April 10, 2014, speech at the Civil Rights Summit at the LBJ Presidential Library. "His experiences in rural Texas may have stretched his moral imagination. But he was ambitious, very ambitious, a young man in a hurry to plot his own escape from poverty and to chart his own political career. And in the Jim Crow South, that meant not challenging convention.

"During his first 20 years in Congress," Obama said, "he opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote, once calling the push for federal legislation a farce and a shame."

What a liberal won't do for a vote. be disingenuous and lie about who you really are.

 

[Unkotare]

...
johnson hated civil rights. ....

Both of them did.

 

[Syriusly]

Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

From a strategical POV one of the worst political decisions ever.

They shoulda gone with Margaret Chase Smith. That woulda made it a contest.

The GOP chose the 'States Rights" candidate- the problem was that 'States Rights" in 1964 essentially meant allowing States to discriminate against blacks.

 

[Pogo]

johnson hated civil rights. No matter how you wish to spin it.

I understand Reagan "hated" tax cuts too. And Shrub 'hated' irrelevant wars. And Clinton 'hated' blowjobs.
Eisenhower "hated" golf. Nixon "hated" China. Etc etc etc........

 

[jc456]

...
johnson hated civil rights. ....

Both of them did.

Johnson was far worse.

 

[jc456]

johnson hated civil rights. No matter how you wish to spin it.

I understand Reagan "hated" tax cuts too. And Shrub 'hated' irrelevant wars. And Clinton 'hated' blowjobs.
Eisenhower "hated" golf. Nixon "hated" China. Etc etc etc........

I love it when facts eat at certain folks on here.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

Your partial response of;

It may stand for that in many cases -- but that's not all it means, and never has been. You have to understand not everrbody thinks it through that deeply. There's a deep cultural element that certainly outpaces most people's knowledge of historical events.

I'm not going to quibble over incremental degrees of reason or opinions or shades of reason of that time! That would be incredibly petty hair splitting, nonproductive and irrationally subjective! I don't have to understand the cultural elements, the myths and/or absorb the tribal knowledge. That can and should be a part of the region's lore EXCLUSIVELY! If other people will not think it through that deeply as you say, that is their issue and certainly not mine; they are welcome to their ignorance and slothfulness!

The FACTS behind my statement you quoted above I made in response to another dealt with this simple minded and uninformed statement to which I responded!

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of State Rights, which has little to do with Slavery. It honors all of those who fought for their state rights, and apparently offends all of those who don't understand what the Civil War was about. Lots of good reasons to love the Confederate Flag.

Now examine my response in the illumination of that declaration and please consider these points in the light of their significance to the question:

1. Were not 'States Rights' a clarion call of the anti-Federalists in the summer of 1786 in Philadelphia's Convention Hall?

YES​

2. Did the Constitution which was ratified result in a Confederation of States or a Federation?

A Federation​

3. Did Federalism win the day or did our Nation become another Confederation like its predecessor?

Federalism and With National Government As Supreme​

4. Did the anti-federalists simply disappear after that time or not?

NO​

5. What was the propose of the Missouri Compromise of 1820?

Boundaries of Slavery​

6. What was the significance of the call for 'States Rights' vis-à-vis the run up to that Compromise?

SLAVERY​

7. Did 'States Rights' become a Euphemistic Term For Slavery starting during that period and through the Civil War?

YES​

8. What was the eventual unbalancing factor of Compromise?

Entry of New States Above the Slavery Demarcation of 36deg 30min and Slave States Becoming a Minority Vote in Congress​

9. Was insurrection/rebellion against the new Federal government, then as now, defined as treason in the US Constitution?

YES​

10. Is Secession Constitutional?

NO; See SCOTUS Texas v. White​

11. Did South Carolina Secede From the Union in December 1860 and Take Up Arms in Rebellion attacking Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861?

YES and YES​

12. Did These Actions in #11 Above Violate the Constitution and Was the Attack an Act of Insurrection/Rebellion and Treason under the Constitution?

YES and YES​

A dishonest person can further quibble about my conclusions to the 12 questions above, but that would not change the facts or the conclusions. As an engineer when troubleshooting an problem, it was the ROOT CAUSE I always sought in the first and the last. The logic is the same with these types of political issues, albeit it somewhat simpler with fewer variables. Find the root cause of the problem and the pieces fall into place. Regardless of which subculture is what and who shot john where and when in the tavern, it is the LAW that matters, and not their "cultural heritage", background or who apologizes for their conduct; IT'S THE LAW!

The bedrock of the Southern economy was in jeopardy of being confined to a specific geographical area and not allowed to expand further. Slavery was that economic bedrock but that dirty, distasteful word needed to be disguised so the term 'States Rights' was the adopted euphemism. The Missouri Compromise was the second MAJOR concession to Southern slavery with those in the drafting of the Constitution being the first. You have a somewhat alter take, but it does not get to that ROOT CAUSE or even articulate a distinct route from the cause to the failure. Oversights happen and should be accepted, but willfully ignoring facts to excuse an alternate favored and biased solution to fit a narrative is abhorrent behavior!

In conclusion, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of 'States Rights' because that term is a fiction being a euphemistic substitute primarily for the word SLAVERY! That flag is more a symbol of hate and traitorous conduct! That flag dishonors all true and faithful Americans who fought to preserve the United States of America over our Nations entire history!!!!

 

[Syriusly]

Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

johnson hated civil rights. .

If you believe that you just have been sucking at the teat of the right wing too long.

Read an actual biography of Johnson and you would know otherwise- he was a big proponent of civil rights- but also one of the best politicians Congress has ever seen- and used many issues to gain power, and push through issues that he personally believed in.

Johnson pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress- without him it likely would not have passed.

The next year he proposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Johnson appointed the first African American Supreme Court Justice(and one of the best) Thurgood Marshall.

LBJ was certainly a flawed man- probably a racist in his own way- but in the end- in 1964- he was the one promoting and signing the Civil Rights Act.

And the GOP Presidential candidate was the one who voted against it.

 

[Syriusly]

Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

johnson hated civil rights. No matter how you wish to spin it. He did it for one thing and one thing only. political. The issue with demoturds started with him. Kennedy was a good conservative, Johnson hated civil rights. I still believe that johnson was involved with Kennedy's death.

Obummer spoke into this in 2014. You should go read at.

From your own link- which shows what an idiot you are

Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln.

 

[jc456]

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

Your partial response of;

It may stand for that in many cases -- but that's not all it means, and never has been. You have to understand not everrbody thinks it through that deeply. There's a deep cultural element that certainly outpaces most people's knowledge of historical events.

I'm not going to quibble over incremental degrees of reason or opinions or shades of reason of that time! That would be incredibly petty hair splitting, nonproductive and irrationally subjective! I don't have to understand the cultural elements, the myths and/or absorb the tribal knowledge. That can and should be a part of the region's lore EXCLUSIVELY! If other people will not think it through that deeply as you say, that is their issue and certainly not mine; they are welcome to their ignorance and slothfulness!

The FACTS behind my statement you quoted above I made in response to another dealt with this simple minded and uninformed statement to which I responded!

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of State Rights, which has little to do with Slavery. It honors all of those who fought for their state rights, and apparently offends all of those who don't understand what the Civil War was about. Lots of good reasons to love the Confederate Flag.

Now examine my response in the illumination of that declaration and please consider these points in the light of their significance to the question:

1. Were not 'States Rights' a clarion call of the anti-Federalists in the summer of 1786 in Philadelphia's Convention Hall?

YES​

2. Did the Constitution which was ratified result in a Confederation of States or a Federation?

A Federation​

3. Did Federalism win the day or did our Nation become another Confederation like its predecessor?

Federalism and With National Government As Supreme​

4. Did the anti-federalists simply disappear after that time or not?

NO​

5. What was the propose of the Missouri Compromise of 1820?

Boundaries of Slavery​

6. What was the significance of the call for 'States Rights' vis-à-vis the run up to that Compromise?

SLAVERY​

7. Did 'States Rights' become a Euphemistic Term For Slavery starting during that period and through the Civil War?

YES​

8. What was the eventual unbalancing factor of Compromise?

Entry of New States Above the Slavery Demarcation of 36deg 30min and Slave States Becoming a Minority Vote in Congress​

9. Was insurrection/rebellion against the new Federal government, then as now, defined as treason in the US Constitution?

YES​

10. Is Secession Constitutional?

NO; See SCOTUS Texas v. White​

11. Did South Carolina Secede From the Union in December 1860 and Take Up Arms in Rebellion attacking Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861?

YES and YES​

12. Did These Actions in #11 Above Violate the Constitution and Was the Attack an Act of Insurrection/Rebellion and Treason under the Constitution?

YES and YES​

A dishonest person can further quibble about my conclusions to the 12 questions above, but that would not change the facts or the conclusions. As an engineer when troubleshooting an problem, it was the ROOT CAUSE I always sought in the first and the last. The logic is the same with these types of political issues, albeit it somewhat simpler with fewer variables. Find the root cause of the problem and the pieces fall into place. Regardless of which subculture is what and who shot john where and when in the tavern, it is the LAW that matters, and not their "cultural heritage", background or who apologizes for their conduct; IT'S THE LAW!

The bedrock of the Southern economy was in jeopardy of being confined to a specific geographical area and not allowed to expand further. Slavery was that economic bedrock but that dirty, distasteful word needed to be disguised so the term 'States Rights' was the adopted euphemism. The Missouri Compromise was the second MAJOR concession to Southern slavery with those in the drafting of the Constitution being the first. You have a somewhat alter take, but it does not get to that ROOT CAUSE or even articulate a distinct route from the cause to the failure. Oversights happen and should be accepted, but willfully ignoring facts to excuse an alternate favored and biased solution to fit a narrative is abhorrent behavior!

In conclusion, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of 'States Rights' because that term is a fiction being a euphemistic substitute primarily for the word SLAVERY! That flag is more a symbol of hate and traitorous conduct! That flag dishonors all true and faithful Americans who fought to preserve the United States of America over our Nations entire history!!!!

that flag represents the hundred of thousands of men that died under it. Doing away with it diminishes their right. No matter what you feel or think. It was those who lost their lives for their states. Period. the majority didn't even own slaves fool.

 

[Pogo]

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

Your partial response of;

It may stand for that in many cases -- but that's not all it means, and never has been. You have to understand not everrbody thinks it through that deeply. There's a deep cultural element that certainly outpaces most people's knowledge of historical events.

I'm not going to quibble over incremental degrees of reason or opinions or shades of reason of that time! That would be incredibly petty hair splitting, nonproductive and irrationally subjective! I don't have to understand the cultural elements, the myths and/or absorb the tribal knowledge. That can and should be a part of the region's lore EXCLUSIVELY! If other people will not think it through that deeply as you say, that is their issue and certainly not mine; they are welcome to their ignorance and slothfulness!

The FACTS behind my statement you quoted above I made in response to another dealt with this simple minded and uninformed statement to which I responded!

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of State Rights, which has little to do with Slavery. It honors all of those who fought for their state rights, and apparently offends all of those who don't understand what the Civil War was about. Lots of good reasons to love the Confederate Flag.

Now examine my response in the illumination of that declaration and please consider these points in the light of their significance to the question:

1. Were not 'States Rights' a clarion call of the anti-Federalists in the summer of 1786 in Philadelphia's Convention Hall?

YES​

2. Did the Constitution which was ratified result in a Confederation of States or a Federation?

A Federation​

3. Did Federalism win the day or did our Nation become another Confederation like its predecessor?

Federalism and With National Government As Supreme​

4. Did the anti-federalists simply disappear after that time or not?

NO​

5. What was the propose of the Missouri Compromise of 1820?

Boundaries of Slavery​

6. What was the significance of the call for 'States Rights' vis-à-vis the run up to that Compromise?

SLAVERY​

7. Did 'States Rights' become a Euphemistic Term For Slavery starting during that period and through the Civil War?

YES​

8. What was the eventual unbalancing factor of Compromise?

Entry of New States Above the Slavery Demarcation of 36deg 30min and Slave States Becoming a Minority Vote in Congress​

9. Was insurrection/rebellion against the new Federal government, then as now, defined as treason in the US Constitution?

YES​

10. Is Secession Constitutional?

NO; See SCOTUS Texas v. White​

11. Did South Carolina Secede From the Union in December 1860 and Take Up Arms in Rebellion attacking Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861?

YES and YES​

12. Did These Actions in #11 Above Violate the Constitution and Was the Attack an Act of Insurrection/Rebellion and Treason under the Constitution?

YES and YES​

A dishonest person can further quibble about my conclusions to the 12 questions above, but that would not change the facts or the conclusions. As an engineer when troubleshooting an problem, it was the ROOT CAUSE I always sought in the first and the last. The logic is the same with these types of political issues, albeit it somewhat simpler with fewer variables. Find the root cause of the problem and the pieces fall into place. Regardless of which subculture is what and who shot john where and when in the tavern, it is the LAW that matters, and not their "cultural heritage", background or who apologizes for their conduct; IT'S THE LAW!

The bedrock of the Southern economy was in jeopardy of being confined to a specific geographical area and not allowed to expand further. Slavery was that economic bedrock but that dirty, distasteful word needed to be disguised so the term 'States Rights' was the adopted euphemism. The Missouri Compromise was the second MAJOR concession to Southern slavery with those in the drafting of the Constitution being the first. You have a somewhat alter take, but it does not get to that ROOT CAUSE or even articulate a distinct route from the cause to the failure. Oversights happen and should be accepted, but willfully ignoring facts to excuse an alternate favored and biased solution to fit a narrative is abhorrent behavior!

In conclusion, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of 'States Rights' because that term is a fiction being a euphemistic substitute primarily for the word SLAVERY! That flag is more a symbol of hate and traitorous conduct! That flag dishonors all true and faithful Americans who fought to preserve the United States of America over our Nations entire history!!!!

And another point sails blithely over another binary-bot's pointed head.

I don't post "partial responses" BB. You take on the whole thing or don't take it on at all. None of all this meandering mutteration has jack shit to do with my post anyway.


And what's with the punctuation? Do you get paid by the exclamation point, or do you usually write for comic books?

 

[jc456]

Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

johnson hated civil rights. .

If you believe that you just have been sucking at the teat of the right wing too long.

Read an actual biography of Johnson and you would know otherwise- he was a big proponent of civil rights- but also one of the best politicians Congress has ever seen- and used many issues to gain power, and push through issues that he personally believed in.

Johnson pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress- without him it likely would not have passed.

The next year he proposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Johnson appointed the first African American Supreme Court Justice(and one of the best) Thurgood Marshall.

LBJ was certainly a flawed man- probably a racist in his own way- but in the end- in 1964- he was the one promoting and signing the Civil Rights Act.

And the GOP Presidential candidate was the one who voted against it.

I posted the facts from obummer speech in 2014. sorry, he did not like civil rights. didn't didn't didn't. he loved winning political races and changed his stance to win. no conviction to what he believed the hitlery one point of view in public and one in private. it's why there are still inner cities today.

 

[jc456]

Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

johnson hated civil rights. No matter how you wish to spin it. He did it for one thing and one thing only. political. The issue with demoturds started with him. Kennedy was a good conservative, Johnson hated civil rights. I still believe that johnson was involved with Kennedy's death.

Obummer spoke into this in 2014. You should go read at.

From your own link- which shows what an idiot you are

Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln.

yeah, 20 years of hating civil rights and then he becomes president cause kennedy died. hmmmmmm yeah you go with your version I'll stay with mine. motivated by politics and only politics.

 

[Unkotare]

...
johnson hated civil rights. ....

Both of them did.

Johnson was far worse.

Worse than Johnson?

 

[Pogo]

Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

johnson hated civil rights. No matter how you wish to spin it. He did it for one thing and one thing only. political. The issue with demoturds started with him. Kennedy was a good conservative, Johnson hated civil rights. I still believe that johnson was involved with Kennedy's death.

Obummer spoke into this in 2014. You should go read at.

From your own link- which shows what an idiot you are

Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln.

Fun fact, calling back in the actual topic:
Lyndon Johnson was the first POTUS since Grant to prosecute the Klan (1965, after they murdered an activist working for black voter registration)

When Johnson was a boy he spent a night in the safety of the family basement watching his father and uncles staying up with shotguns all night anticipating the Klan were going to make good on their threats on the family after father Sam had denounced the Klan in the state House.

 

[Syriusly]

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

Your partial response of;

It may stand for that in many cases -- but that's not all it means, and never has been. You have to understand not everrbody thinks it through that deeply. There's a deep cultural element that certainly outpaces most people's knowledge of historical events.

I'm not going to quibble over incremental degrees of reason or opinions or shades of reason of that time! That would be incredibly petty hair splitting, nonproductive and irrationally subjective! I don't have to understand the cultural elements, the myths and/or absorb the tribal knowledge. That can and should be a part of the region's lore EXCLUSIVELY! If other people will not think it through that deeply as you say, that is their issue and certainly not mine; they are welcome to their ignorance and slothfulness!

The FACTS behind my statement you quoted above I made in response to another dealt with this simple minded and uninformed statement to which I responded!

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of State Rights, which has little to do with Slavery. It honors all of those who fought for their state rights, and apparently offends all of those who don't understand what the Civil War was about. Lots of good reasons to love the Confederate Flag.

Now examine my response in the illumination of that declaration and please consider these points in the light of their significance to the question:

1. Were not 'States Rights' a clarion call of the anti-Federalists in the summer of 1786 in Philadelphia's Convention Hall?

YES​

2. Did the Constitution which was ratified result in a Confederation of States or a Federation?

A Federation​

3. Did Federalism win the day or did our Nation become another Confederation like its predecessor?

Federalism and With National Government As Supreme​

4. Did the anti-federalists simply disappear after that time or not?

NO​

5. What was the propose of the Missouri Compromise of 1820?

Boundaries of Slavery​

6. What was the significance of the call for 'States Rights' vis-à-vis the run up to that Compromise?

SLAVERY​

7. Did 'States Rights' become a Euphemistic Term For Slavery starting during that period and through the Civil War?

YES​

8. What was the eventual unbalancing factor of Compromise?

Entry of New States Above the Slavery Demarcation of 36deg 30min and Slave States Becoming a Minority Vote in Congress​

9. Was insurrection/rebellion against the new Federal government, then as now, defined as treason in the US Constitution?

YES​

10. Is Secession Constitutional?

NO; See SCOTUS Texas v. White​

11. Did South Carolina Secede From the Union in December 1860 and Take Up Arms in Rebellion attacking Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861?

YES and YES​

12. Did These Actions in #11 Above Violate the Constitution and Was the Attack an Act of Insurrection/Rebellion and Treason under the Constitution?

YES and YES​

A dishonest person can further quibble about my conclusions to the 12 questions above, but that would not change the facts or the conclusions. As an engineer when troubleshooting an problem, it was the ROOT CAUSE I always sought in the first and the last. The logic is the same with these types of political issues, albeit it somewhat simpler with fewer variables. Find the root cause of the problem and the pieces fall into place. Regardless of which subculture is what and who shot john where and when in the tavern, it is the LAW that matters, and not their "cultural heritage", background or who apologizes for their conduct; IT'S THE LAW!

The bedrock of the Southern economy was in jeopardy of being confined to a specific geographical area and not allowed to expand further. Slavery was that economic bedrock but that dirty, distasteful word needed to be disguised so the term 'States Rights' was the adopted euphemism. The Missouri Compromise was the second MAJOR concession to Southern slavery with those in the drafting of the Constitution being the first. You have a somewhat alter take, but it does not get to that ROOT CAUSE or even articulate a distinct route from the cause to the failure. Oversights happen and should be accepted, but willfully ignoring facts to excuse an alternate favored and biased solution to fit a narrative is abhorrent behavior!

In conclusion, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of 'States Rights' because that term is a fiction being a euphemistic substitute primarily for the word SLAVERY! That flag is more a symbol of hate and traitorous conduct! That flag dishonors all true and faithful Americans who fought to preserve the United States of America over our Nations entire history!!!!

that flag represents the hundred of thousands of men that died under it. Doing away with it diminishes their right. No matter what you feel or think. It was those who lost their lives for their states. Period. the majority didn't even own slaves fool.

'diminishes their right'- what right to do dead from 150 years ago have?

Not a person alive fought under that flag in their war against the United States.

I don't want the Stars and Bars- the symbol of the Democratic Party(LOL)- banned. But no one has a right to it.

 

[Syriusly]

And in the 1964 CRA vote- more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor.

Because there were more Democrats in the House and Senate.

But a greater percentage of Republicans in each house voted for it, than the percentage of the Democrats. So many Democrats voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that they would have defeated it if not for the high percentages of Republicans supporting it.

I am always glad to repeat the facts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act- because I find the right wing revisionist history that the Democrats all opposed the CRA to be so ridiculous.

The Civil Rights Act was proposed by John F. Kennedy- Democrat.
And pushed through Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson- Democrat- who used the occasion of Kennedy's assassination to publicly push Congress to approve the Civil Rights Act.

In every case- a majority of Democrats- and Republicans- voted for the CRA. The fact is that the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act- with Republican help. Neither could have done it by themselves.

The original House version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[22]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[21]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Now lets look at the voting by region- note every Republican from the South voted against the CRA.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

But the kicker in all of this- the vote that really hurt the GOP- was the vote by Barry Goldwater- who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And then was nominated by the GOP to be their Presidential candidate in 1964.

Yes- the GOP nominated one of the only 5 "Northern" GOP Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act to run against Lyndon B. Johnson- who had pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

And that is why Martin Luther King Jr. called on African Americans to not vote Republican in 1964.

johnson hated civil rights. .

If you believe that you just have been sucking at the teat of the right wing too long.

Read an actual biography of Johnson and you would know otherwise- he was a big proponent of civil rights- but also one of the best politicians Congress has ever seen- and used many issues to gain power, and push through issues that he personally believed in.

Johnson pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress- without him it likely would not have passed.

The next year he proposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Johnson appointed the first African American Supreme Court Justice(and one of the best) Thurgood Marshall.

LBJ was certainly a flawed man- probably a racist in his own way- but in the end- in 1964- he was the one promoting and signing the Civil Rights Act.

And the GOP Presidential candidate was the one who voted against it.

I posted the facts from obummer speech in 2014..

You posted a link which contradicted your own claim- because you are an idiot and a liar.

You claimed: johnson hated civil rights.

President Obama of course never said that- you were just lying.

From your own link- which shows what an idiot you are

Caro: The reason it’s questioned is that for no less than 20 years in Congress, from 1937 to 1957, Johnson’s record was on the side of the South. He not only voted with the South on civil rights, but he was a southern strategist, but in 1957, he changes and pushes through the first civil rights bill since Reconstruction. He always had this true, deep compassion to help poor people and particularly poor people of color, but even stronger than the compassion was his ambition. But when the two aligned, when compassion and ambition finally are pointing in the same direction, then Lyndon Johnson becomes a force for racial justice, unequalled certainly since Lincoln.

 

[jc456]

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

Your partial response of;

It may stand for that in many cases -- but that's not all it means, and never has been. You have to understand not everrbody thinks it through that deeply. There's a deep cultural element that certainly outpaces most people's knowledge of historical events.

I'm not going to quibble over incremental degrees of reason or opinions or shades of reason of that time! That would be incredibly petty hair splitting, nonproductive and irrationally subjective! I don't have to understand the cultural elements, the myths and/or absorb the tribal knowledge. That can and should be a part of the region's lore EXCLUSIVELY! If other people will not think it through that deeply as you say, that is their issue and certainly not mine; they are welcome to their ignorance and slothfulness!

The FACTS behind my statement you quoted above I made in response to another dealt with this simple minded and uninformed statement to which I responded!

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of State Rights, which has little to do with Slavery. It honors all of those who fought for their state rights, and apparently offends all of those who don't understand what the Civil War was about. Lots of good reasons to love the Confederate Flag.

Now examine my response in the illumination of that declaration and please consider these points in the light of their significance to the question:

1. Were not 'States Rights' a clarion call of the anti-Federalists in the summer of 1786 in Philadelphia's Convention Hall?

YES​

2. Did the Constitution which was ratified result in a Confederation of States or a Federation?

A Federation​

3. Did Federalism win the day or did our Nation become another Confederation like its predecessor?

Federalism and With National Government As Supreme​

4. Did the anti-federalists simply disappear after that time or not?

NO​

5. What was the propose of the Missouri Compromise of 1820?

Boundaries of Slavery​

6. What was the significance of the call for 'States Rights' vis-à-vis the run up to that Compromise?

SLAVERY​

7. Did 'States Rights' become a Euphemistic Term For Slavery starting during that period and through the Civil War?

YES​

8. What was the eventual unbalancing factor of Compromise?

Entry of New States Above the Slavery Demarcation of 36deg 30min and Slave States Becoming a Minority Vote in Congress​

9. Was insurrection/rebellion against the new Federal government, then as now, defined as treason in the US Constitution?

YES​

10. Is Secession Constitutional?

NO; See SCOTUS Texas v. White​

11. Did South Carolina Secede From the Union in December 1860 and Take Up Arms in Rebellion attacking Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861?

YES and YES​

12. Did These Actions in #11 Above Violate the Constitution and Was the Attack an Act of Insurrection/Rebellion and Treason under the Constitution?

YES and YES​

A dishonest person can further quibble about my conclusions to the 12 questions above, but that would not change the facts or the conclusions. As an engineer when troubleshooting an problem, it was the ROOT CAUSE I always sought in the first and the last. The logic is the same with these types of political issues, albeit it somewhat simpler with fewer variables. Find the root cause of the problem and the pieces fall into place. Regardless of which subculture is what and who shot john where and when in the tavern, it is the LAW that matters, and not their "cultural heritage", background or who apologizes for their conduct; IT'S THE LAW!

The bedrock of the Southern economy was in jeopardy of being confined to a specific geographical area and not allowed to expand further. Slavery was that economic bedrock but that dirty, distasteful word needed to be disguised so the term 'States Rights' was the adopted euphemism. The Missouri Compromise was the second MAJOR concession to Southern slavery with those in the drafting of the Constitution being the first. You have a somewhat alter take, but it does not get to that ROOT CAUSE or even articulate a distinct route from the cause to the failure. Oversights happen and should be accepted, but willfully ignoring facts to excuse an alternate favored and biased solution to fit a narrative is abhorrent behavior!

In conclusion, the Confederate flag is not a symbol of 'States Rights' because that term is a fiction being a euphemistic substitute primarily for the word SLAVERY! That flag is more a symbol of hate and traitorous conduct! That flag dishonors all true and faithful Americans who fought to preserve the United States of America over our Nations entire history!!!!

that flag represents the hundred of thousands of men that died under it. Doing away with it diminishes their right. No matter what you feel or think. It was those who lost their lives for their states. Period. the majority didn't even own slaves fool.

'diminishes their right'- what right to do dead from 150 years ago have?

Not a person alive fought under that flag in their war against the United States.

I don't want the Stars and Bars- the symbol of the Democratic Party(LOL)- banned. But no one has a right to it.

so are you saying their families all died out so there are no relatives of those who died? really, that's what you're going with? here,