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

[jc456]

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.

the facts are:
from my link before,

"Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote."

 

[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. 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.

Of course you will stay with your lies.

President Obama correctly pointed out that Johnson opposed Civil Rights legislation for 20 years- until 1957.

And as noted in THE VERY LINK YOU CITED

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.

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.

The flag represents civil war veterans- which as the OP notes- started the KKK.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

One party fought for their freedom, the other against it.

 

[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.

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,

So you are saying you enjoy kicking puppies and tripping little old ladies? Really, that is what your going with here?

(in case the sarcasm is not understood- JC deliberately claimed I had said something I didn't say)

 

[jc456]

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.

Of course you will stay with your lies.

President Obama correctly pointed out that Johnson opposed Civil Rights legislation for 20 years- until 1957.

And as noted in THE VERY LINK YOU CITED

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.

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.

The flag represents civil war veterans- which as the OP notes- started the KKK.

so fking what? a pattern is a pattern is a pattern right? Isn't that what you libturds say everyday? why is it when it needs to fit your pattern, it's ok? wow. dishonest indeed.

You forget what people do when they get power.

 

[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,

So you are saying you enjoy kicking puppies and tripping little old ladies? Really, that is what your going with here?

(in case the sarcasm is not understood- JC deliberately claimed I had said something I didn't say)

which is what?

 

[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.

One party fought for their freedom, the other against it.

Sigh.

Generally I think you are smart enough to understand nuance, but then again you fool me sometimes.

The Democrats were racists- both the Democrats of the North- and the Democrats of the Confederacy.

The Republicans were also racists. Lincoln was a racist.

The South went to war to protect their right to own slaves.
The North went to war to protect keep the Union intact- and Lincoln- by the end- realized that the best way to accomplish that was to free the slaves.

Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents. Even though by our standard, he would be considered a racist.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Of course you will stay with your lies.

President Obama correctly pointed out that Johnson opposed Civil Rights legislation for 20 years- until 1957.

And as noted in THE VERY LINK YOU CITED

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.

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.

The flag represents civil war veterans- which as the OP notes- started the KKK.

so fking what? .

Indeed- so fucking what.

It is really not relevant now that the KKK was founded by confederate veterans. Nor is it relevant whether or not they considered themselves Democrats.

But this whole thread is about trying to blame the Democrats for the KKK- while ignoring that the KKK was founded by Confederate veterans- and that the Stars and Bars represented those veterans too.

So as long as you are willing to stop trying to blame the modern day Democratic Party for the KKK of 1865- I am willing to stop pointing out that the Stars and Bars is the flag of the KKK.

 

[jc456]

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.

One party fought for their freedom, the other against it.

Sigh.

Generally I think you are smart enough to understand nuance, but then again you fool me sometimes.

The Democrats were racists- both the Democrats of the North- and the Democrats of the Confederacy.

The Republicans were also racists. Lincoln was a racist.

The South went to war to protect their right to own slaves.
The North went to war to protect keep the Union intact- and Lincoln- by the end- realized that the best way to accomplish that was to free the slaves.

Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents. Even though by our standard, he would be considered a racist.

dude not every dead confederate owned slaves. in fact if you actually looked up how many who fought actually did, you'd learn something.

The entire world had slaves. big fking deal. there were slaves that were irish and jewish and black and polish, and slovakian. what the fk are you babbling about. the south did not want the north to dictate policy to them. Period. read about it some day. It's why those who didn't own slaves died for the cause. fk I hate your kind of stupid.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

the facts are:
from my link before,

"Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote."

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

One party fought for their freedom, the other against it.

Sigh.

Generally I think you are smart enough to understand nuance, but then again you fool me sometimes.

The Democrats were racists- both the Democrats of the North- and the Democrats of the Confederacy.

The Republicans were also racists. Lincoln was a racist.

The South went to war to protect their right to own slaves.
The North went to war to protect keep the Union intact- and Lincoln- by the end- realized that the best way to accomplish that was to free the slaves.

Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents. Even though by our standard, he would be considered a racist.

dude not every dead confederate owned slaves..

And not every dead Democrat was a KKK member.

 

[jc456]

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.

Of course you will stay with your lies.

President Obama correctly pointed out that Johnson opposed Civil Rights legislation for 20 years- until 1957.

And as noted in THE VERY LINK YOU CITED

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.

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.

The flag represents civil war veterans- which as the OP notes- started the KKK.

so fking what? .

Indeed- so fucking what.

It is really not relevant now that the KKK was founded by confederate veterans. Nor is it relevant whether or not they considered themselves Democrats.

But this whole thread is about trying to blame the Democrats for the KKK- while ignoring that the KKK was founded by Confederate veterans- and that the Stars and Bars represented those veterans too.

So as long as you are willing to stop trying to blame the modern day Democratic Party for the KKK of 1865- I am willing to stop pointing out that the Stars and Bars is the flag of the KKK.

well it sucks when the facts are the facts and you line up with them eh? Fact, the democrats were the ones who created the kkk. It's just a fking fact. why do you wish to change that? You can't, but not sure your point. You're all butt hurt it follows your party of hate? well it is sort of ironic how you can't get out from under it eh?

 

[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!!!!

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?

Your entire bloody post was responded to with only minor attention paid to your last 5 paragraphs in the closing paragraphs. Your homilies explaining the Southern way of life were on topic and dealt with the law relevant to the period????

I don't post "partial responses" BB.

You just did with the your post to which I'm responding! And it's the very first time I've been accused of binary thinking! Objectivity rules that out so the obvious conclusion is your are woefully mistaken or just acting out because you need your binky!

None of all this meandering mutteration has jack shit to do with my post anyway.

With the 8 minute differential between the time stamp on my post and that on yours, their was very little time for you to first locate it, read it, understand it and respond to it. I'm believing you scanned it and didn't like being confronted with a challenge, which might force you to concede a point or two or three.

*Sigh* I started to believe their just might be an intellectually honest person on the board, but I guess I'll just keep looking!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jc456]

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.

the facts are:
from my link before,

"Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote."

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

 

[Syriusly]

[
The entire world had slaves. big fking deal. there were slaves that were irish and jewish and black and polish, and slovakian. what the fk are you babbling about. the south did not want the north to dictate policy to them. .

The South went to war because they believed that the election of President Lincoln would result in the end of legal slavery.

South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession | Teaching American History

DECLARATION OF THE IMMEDIATE CAUSES WHICH INDUCE AND JUSTIFY THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE FEDERAL UNION.

The People of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert, that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfil their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its 4th Article, provides as follows:

“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio river.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the general government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

the facts are:
from my link before,

"Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote."

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

Well at least you aren't resorting to the rest of your lies in this thread

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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]

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.

One party fought for their freedom, the other against it.

Sigh.

Generally I think you are smart enough to understand nuance, but then again you fool me sometimes.

The Democrats were racists- both the Democrats of the North- and the Democrats of the Confederacy.

The Republicans were also racists. Lincoln was a racist.

The South went to war to protect their right to own slaves.
The North went to war to protect keep the Union intact- and Lincoln- by the end- realized that the best way to accomplish that was to free the slaves.

Lincoln was one of our greatest Presidents. Even though by our standard, he would be considered a racist.

dude not every dead confederate owned slaves..

And not every dead Democrat was a KKK member.

I never said they were did I? if so, post my quote.

 

[jc456]

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.

the facts are:
from my link before,

"Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote."

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

Well at least you aren't resorting to the rest of your lies in this thread

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

dude save some ink and stop posting the same thing over and over, it is a violation of the board. If you wish to discuss something more than post that. you lost round one. so no need to continue to post it over and over, it won't matter.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

the facts are:
from my link before,

"Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote."

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

Well at least you aren't resorting to the rest of your lies in this thread

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

dude save some ink and stop posting the same thing over and over, it is a violation of the board. If you wish to discuss something more than post that. you lost round one. so no need to continue to post it over and over, it won't matter.

As long as I add additional commentary- it isn't against board policy- but good to know you are a rules lawyer besides a liar.

You posted a link- after you claimed that Johnson hated Civil Rights- you claimed that President Obama's speech supported that claim but of course it didn't- President Obama noted that President Johnson opposed Civil Rights from 1937-1957- for political purposes.

No one in your citation said that Johnson hated civil rights- that was just your lie. What your citation did note was that Johnson became one of the leading Civil Rights Presidents- right after Lincoln

Well at least you aren't resorting to the rest of your lies in this thread

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

You lose every round because you start off with a lie- and then double down.

 

[jc456]

the facts are:
from my link before,

"Similarly, White House spokesman Eric Schultz answered our request for information with emailed excerpts from Means of Ascent, the second volume of Caro’s books on Johnson.

The introduction to the book says that as Johnson became president in 1963, some civil rights leaders were not convinced of Johnson’s good faith, due to his voting record. "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill – against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote. "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote."

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

Well at least you aren't resorting to the rest of your lies in this thread

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

dude save some ink and stop posting the same thing over and over, it is a violation of the board. If you wish to discuss something more than post that. you lost round one. so no need to continue to post it over and over, it won't matter.

As long as I add additional commentary- it isn't against board policy- but good to know you are a rules lawyer besides a liar.

You posted a link- after you claimed that Johnson hated Civil Rights- you claimed that President Obama's speech supported that claim but of course it didn't- President Obama noted that President Johnson opposed Civil Rights from 1937-1957- for political purposes.

No one in your citation said that Johnson hated civil rights- that was just your lie. What your citation did note was that Johnson became one of the leading Civil Rights Presidents- right after Lincoln

Well at least you aren't resorting to the rest of your lies in this thread

From your own link- which shows what a lying idiot you are when you claimed that Johnson hated civil rights.

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.

You lose every round because you start off with a lie- and then double down.

more useless ink from a loser.