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

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

The moment those men took up arms against the United States of America, they became rebellious TRAITORS! As traitors, they forfeited their rights as US Citizens.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually no Spunky, that's not a "fkiing [sic] fact" at all. It's a myth pushed by morons like you on the internet desperately hoping anyone will take seriously a myth you put up with no support for it.

Got your facts right here, Hunior. The Klan was founded December 25 1865 in the Jones Law Office at Pulaski Tennessee by:

1. Calvin Jones (son of the business owner)
2. Capt John B. Kennedy
3. Capt. John Lester
4. James Crowe
5. Frank McCord
6. Richard Reed

--- ALL of whom were Confederate veteran soldiers and NOT ONE of whom carried any history of political affiliations or activities at all. PERIOD.

And there ain't a god damn thing you can do about that except to go find one and prove me wrong.

You can't do it. There isn't any.

That Klan lasted about ten years, if that. Then it was restarted in 1915 by an opportunist named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons. What do we know about Simmons?

• Huckster
• Drunk
• Opportunist
• Gambler
  
• Salesman
• Inveterate club-starter
• ex-minister (Methodist)

--- what do we know about his politics?

Nothing.

Again ----- prove me wrong, Dipstick.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That describes every post you make at USMB.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Actually no Spunky, that's not a "fkiing [sic] fact" at all. It's a myth pushed by morons like you on the internet desperately hoping anyone will take seriously a myth you put up with no support for it.

Got your facts right here, Hunior. The Klan was founded December 25 1865 in the Jones Law Office at Pulaski Tennessee by:

1. Calvin Jones (son of the business owner)
2. Capt John B. Kennedy
3. Capt. John Lester
4. James Crowe
5. Frank McCord
6. Richard Reed

--- ALL of whom were Confederate veteran soldiers and NOT ONE of whom carried any history of political affiliations or activities at all. PERIOD.

And there ain't a god damn thing you can do about that except to go find one and prove me wrong.

You can't do it. There isn't any.

That Klan lasted about ten years, if that. Then it was restarted in 1915 by an opportunist named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons. What do we know about Simmons?

• Huckster
• Drunk
• Opportunist
• Gambler
  
• Salesman
• Inveterate club-starter
• ex-minister (Methodist)

--- what do we know about his politics?

Nothing.

Again ----- prove me wrong, Dipstick.

Typically the very people who start these threads trying to label Democrats as the KKK, also happen to be Confederacy fanboys- lovers of the Stars and Bars.

 

[jc456]

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.

The moment those men took up arms against the United States of America, they became rebellious TRAITORS! As traitors, they forfeited their rights as US Citizens.

They didn't want to be in the US. Why did the north care?

 

[jc456]

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.

Actually no Spunky, that's not a "fkiing [sic] fact" at all. It's a myth pushed by morons like you on the internet desperately hoping anyone will take seriously a myth you put up with no support for it.

Got your facts right here, Hunior. The Klan was founded December 25 1865 in the Jones Law Office at Pulaski Tennessee by:

1. Calvin Jones (son of the business owner)
2. Capt John B. Kennedy
3. Capt. John Lester
4. James Crowe
5. Frank McCord
6. Richard Reed

--- ALL of whom were Confederate veteran soldiers and NOT ONE of whom carried any history of political affiliations or activities at all. PERIOD.

And there ain't a god damn thing you can do about that except to go find one and prove me wrong.

You can't do it. There isn't any.

That Klan lasted about ten years, if that. Then it was restarted in 1915 by an opportunist named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons. What do we know about Simmons?

• Huckster
• Drunk
• Opportunist
• Gambler
  
• Salesman
• Inveterate club-starter
• ex-minister (Methodist)

--- what do we know about his politics?

Nothing.

Again ----- prove me wrong, Dipstick.

Typically the very people who start these threads trying to label Democrats as the KKK, also happen to be Confederacy fanboys- lovers of the Stars and Bars.

Misrepresentation misrepresentation

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The moment those men took up arms against the United States of America, they became rebellious TRAITORS! As traitors, they forfeited their rights as US Citizens.

They didn't want to be in the US. Why did the north care?

You mean why did the United States care?
You don't care whether Americans become traitors to the United States?

 

[Unkotare]

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.

The moment those men took up arms against the United States of America, they became rebellious TRAITORS! As traitors, they forfeited their rights as US Citizens.

They didn't want to be in the US. Why did the north care?

If they didn't want to be in the US their option was to leave the country, not break up the Union.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Your partial response of;

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!

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.

The moment those men took up arms against the United States of America, they became rebellious TRAITORS! As traitors, they forfeited their rights as US Citizens.

They didn't want to be in the US. Why did the north care?

If they didn't want to be in the US their option was to leave the country, not break up the Union.

Actually they did leave the country. Which act by definition breaks up the Union.

There really should be a "think" button before you get a "post" button.

/offtopic

 

[Unkotare]

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.

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.

The moment those men took up arms against the United States of America, they became rebellious TRAITORS! As traitors, they forfeited their rights as US Citizens.

They didn't want to be in the US. Why did the north care?

If they didn't want to be in the US their option was to leave the country, not break up the Union.

Actually they did leave the country. Which act by definition breaks up the Union.

...

They tried and they failed. Kind of like you do every time you try to pretend you know the first thing about...well, anything.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

 

[Pogo]

On Dec. 24, 1865, Democrats in the American South formed the Ku Klux Klan

BULLSHIT.

Read your own link:

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

DUMBASS.

 

[Flopper]

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.

There's no evidence the KKK was created by any political party. The founders were probably Democrat assuming they claimed membership in any political party because that party was the dominate party in the South. They were also likely to be Christians since Christianity was the predominate faith. However, that does not mean the KKK was founded by any Christian demonetization. It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party then bears no similarity to the party of today nor does the racist white Christian churches in the South then bear any similar to those today.

 

[jc456]

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.

Your partial response of;

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!

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.

The moment those men took up arms against the United States of America, they became rebellious TRAITORS! As traitors, they forfeited their rights as US Citizens.

They didn't want to be in the US. Why did the north care?

You mean why did the United States care?
You don't care whether Americans become traitors to the United States?

Why did the north care, it's what I fkn wrote right?

 

[jc456]

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

The moment those men took up arms against the United States of America, they became rebellious TRAITORS! As traitors, they forfeited their rights as US Citizens.

They didn't want to be in the US. Why did the north care?

If they didn't want to be in the US their option was to leave the country, not break up the Union.

Actually they did leave the country. Which act by definition breaks up the Union.

...

They tried and they failed. Kind of like you do every time you try to pretend you know the first thing about...well, anything.

It was their state not the United's seems self explanatory

 

[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.

There's no evidence the KKK was created by any political party. The founders were probably Democrat assuming they claimed membership in any political party because that party was the dominate party in the South. They were also likely to be Christians since Christianity was the predominate faith. However, that does not mean the KKK was founded by any Christian demonetization. It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party then bears no similarity to the party of today nor does the racist white Christian churches in the South then bear any similar to those today.

How you figure?

 

[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.

There's no evidence the KKK was created by any political party. The founders were probably Democrat assuming they claimed membership in any political party because that party was the dominate party in the South. They were also likely to be Christians since Christianity was the predominate faith. However, that does not mean the KKK was founded by any Christian demonetization. It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party then bears no similarity to the party of today nor does the racist white Christian churches in the South then bear any similar to those today.

Oh yeah now you double down that it was Christians wow history and fact and you try and fake propaganda it! Hahahaha

 

[Flopper]

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.

Your link doesn't say Democrats founded the KKK. I see YOU saying it but your link doesn't. I think I might know why.

1. Would you agree that when southern states seceded from the union they were no longer Democrats? I think it is reasonable to say that in a legal as well as a technical sense. That is the basis for my premise.

2. The KKK was formed on December 24 1865 in Tennessee. But the people forming the KKK could not have been Democrats at the time because no states of the former confederacy had been readmitted to the union until 24 July.
1866. Confederate veterans, YES, but not Democrats.

3. The integrity of the Democratic Party was kept intact by northern democrats who had, in the years preceding the war, split into two factions: the copperheads who were sympathetic to the south and the War Democrats who took the diametrically opposite stance.

So to set the record straight, at least for now. Democrats didn't start the KKK. People who were not a part of the United States of America did.

To say the Democrats founded the KKK makes about as much sense as saying the Catholics founded Nazism because Adolph Hitler was raised a Catholic.

 

[Pogo]

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.

There's no evidence the KKK was created by any political party. The founders were probably Democrat assuming they claimed membership in any political party because that party was the dominate party in the South. They were also likely to be Christians since Christianity was the predominate faith. However, that does not mean the KKK was founded by any Christian demonetization. It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party then bears no similarity to the party of today nor does the racist white Christian churches in the South then bear any similar to those today.

Indeed there's no evidence any of them had any political affiliation or activity at all, plus in 1865 Tennessee was disenfranchised anyway. Nor is there any evidence they formed it with any kind of political aim, though there is evidence to the contrary. As the OP's own link (among many others) states -- "a secret social fraternity".

 

[owebo]

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.

There's no evidence the KKK was created by any political party. The founders were probably Democrat assuming they claimed membership in any political party because that party was the dominate party in the South. They were also likely to be Christians since Christianity was the predominate faith. However, that does not mean the KKK was founded by any Christian demonetization. It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party then bears no similarity to the party of today nor does the racist white Christian churches in the South then bear any similar to those today.

The kkk was created by democrats....