Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Biff_Poindexter]

Democrats.

Actually slavery existed in the south for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

300 years actually,

Over which time they were being shipped and sold in the Caribbean and South America in far greater numbers, where the Democratic Party has never existed at all. And the poster's been told this repeatedly, yet here he is trotting out the same bullshit expecting different results.

600,000 African slaves were brought to the US.
Twelve million were captured and sent to the Americas. Four and a half million to Brazil alone.

That means 95% of those slaves went to places where the Democratic Party has never existed.

From this, following American'tdo's logic, we must conclude that the Democratic Party curtailed the slave trade, bigly.

Yet, in US only Democrats fought to keep slavery.

For the 195th time ----- the Confederacy had no political parties.

PROVE they did.

Who made decision to secede? Farmers? Trappers? Or politicians?

Confederacy was political decision, otherwise it wouldn't be feasible.

Now, name all political parties in the South at the time. Go.

Question...

What side of the political spectrum would these 2 positions fall on....

Slavery....

Abolition of slavery.....

Now which side of the political spectrum would be more favorable to maintaining slavery??


Now which side of the political spectrum would be more favorable to abolishing slavery and granting full rights and equal protection under the law??

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Every time a subject like this comes up -- it is ALWAYS the so-called "conservatives" who keeps lying about it...…

Every time a subject like this comes up -- it is ALWAYS the so-called "conservatives" who continues to reflexively try to defend the Confederacy....

It's almost like the so-called "conservatives" and the "confederacy" share the same ideology….

The "Confederacy" was accepted as part of American Heritage, long ago. The respect for their fallen soldiers was morphed into regional pride, as part of the larger American Nationalism, while the reasons for the rebellion became moot and the desire for secession was immediately dropped.



So, yes, Conservatives are looking to conserve this aspect of American history and culture.


ONly a race baiting asshole would find anything wrong with this.

You dic suckers would be the same ones in Germany trying to romanticize the Nazis as just your way of "conserving" culture.....

History has spoken and continues to speak....and you dumb asses continue to be on the wrong side of it..fuk what you talking about

Germans exterminated the Nazi party. If we follow your logic, we should do the same with Democrat party, right?

Alright. I admit, you are making a strong argument there.

It's a goofy argument because his dumb ass was the one whining about it not being about parties...

But when I point out to him that conservatives have been on the wrong side of history over and over again -- now he wants to have a hissy fit about "well maybe we should destroy the Democrat party"

No..America destroyed the Confederacy.....and dic suckers like the both of you keep on trying to defend it...because it is what you conservatives always try to do....defend defeated ideology....

 

[Pogo]

Democrats.

Actually slavery existed in the south for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

300 years actually,

Over which time they were being shipped and sold in the Caribbean and South America in far greater numbers, where the Democratic Party has never existed at all. And the poster's been told this repeatedly, yet here he is trotting out the same bullshit expecting different results.

600,000 African slaves were brought to the US.
Twelve million were captured and sent to the Americas. Four and a half million to Brazil alone.

That means 95% of those slaves went to places where the Democratic Party has never existed.

From this, following American'tdo's logic, we must conclude that the Democratic Party curtailed the slave trade, bigly.

Yet, in US only Democrats fought to keep slavery.

For the 195th time ----- the Confederacy had no political parties.

PROVE they did.

Who made decision to secede? Farmers? Trappers? Or politicians?

The rich did. The indolent planter class, as I like to call them. The wealthy who had made and were continuing to make their wealth on the backs of slaves. That element was despised in vast swaths of the South such as where I'm sitting, where the residents were subsistence farming and couldn't afford slaves even if they had wanted to. That's why there was so much resistance --- which bullshit artists like the Lost Cause Cult have clouded over. That's why Andrew Johnson --- you know, Lincoln's Democrat future running mate --- spoke forcefully against secession over those mountains (pointing west) in East Tennessee, where they voted NO on secession to the tune of 95%.

That's why desertion and draft dodging and Home Guards were so prominent. That's why pockets of resistance sprang up all over the South from the Texas Hill country to Searcy County Arkansas to the Free State of Jones in Mississippi to Winston County Alabama to the area around Chattanooga/northeast Georgia, which all stayed loyal to the Union and resisted the Confederacy from inside it. That's why the counties of what is now West Virginia seceded from Virginia in protest, and why the counties of East Tennessee would have done the same thing had they not been occupied by Confederate separatist forces. You see son, when we describe the War as tearing apart families and "brother against brother", that's an internal reference to the South, which was in no way unified in its cause.

Hell, the aforementioned John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party won both Tennessee and Virginia in the 1860 election, and they were against secession.

I can tell by your writing that you're not an American and English is not your first language, so let me explain "Home Guards". These were local militia that wanted no part of war and would defend their homes from EITHER side's army. The two armies were already impersonating each other. Hence the bushwackers.

Confederacy was political decision, otherwise it wouldn't be feasible.

This is where I can tell you're not from this country. Nobody here talks like that. Looks like you're a Russian, where they're not used to articles -- "Confederacy was political decision" tovarich? BUSTED.

Now, name all political parties in the South at the time. Go.

Already did that above. Perhaps you were lost in your Russian-to-English dictionary.

 

[Pogo]

Democrats did not bring slavery to this country

That would be Southern Conservatives

Slavery was brought to this country before them too. Conservatives were present in the North and South.

Conservatives in the North did not owned the slaves, only those in South did, and yes, they were all Democrats.

Very true
And Democrats in the North did not own slaves

Does that make it a North/South issue?

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

That's curious, because their (1860) candidate wasn't. As I schooled your sorry ass yesterday and before, the Democrat position was, say it with me, 'popular sovereignty'. That means each new state would choose for itself and the federal government would stay out of their way.

And that's because the Democrats were all about "states rights" and smaller decentralized government, whereas the Whigs, who largely populated the then-new Republican Party, were all about doing big things with a big central government. That's why Buchanan hesitated to act against the uprising South -- he didn't believe the President had the authority. Lincoln did. And yes, Lincoln had been a Whig.

Matter of fact that's pretty much why the South kicked the Democratic Party out --- because they wouldn't take the position of expanding Slavery as you hallucinate here with your pipeful of wishful thinking. As in "I WISH I could rewrite the history books". Whelp --- ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

You schooled me? Right, that's your pipe dream.

And this one is a real gem.

"South kicked the Democratic Party out"

LOL

Correct. Somebody thought it would be a good idea to hold the Democratic Convention of 1860 in Charleston (that's in South Carolina for those of you in Vladivostok). When they did, the southern contingent, who were UNhappy that the Party was NOT taking the slavery-expansion stance you want to paint here, disrupted the whole thing to the point where the convention had to be suspended and moved out of town. When it reconvened in Baltimore the first order of business was that the rebellious southerners were EXPELLED. They then went on to nominate Stephen Douglas, the young Senate Majority Leader of the time (whose name those who actually went to school in the United States will recall from the "Lincoln-Douglas debates", which was an 1858 run for the Illinois Senate, which Douglas won). Douglas came in dead last in the election, winning one state (Missouri, which is where Kansas City is), and getting shut out entirely in the South. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour -- the media blitz of the time -- around the South to try to talk it OUT OF secession. When that failed he advised Lincoln on how best to confront them.

Sorry if these inconvenient factoids don't appear in your Russian playbook, Boris.

 

[Correll]

Every time a subject like this comes up -- it is ALWAYS the so-called "conservatives" who keeps lying about it...…

Every time a subject like this comes up -- it is ALWAYS the so-called "conservatives" who continues to reflexively try to defend the Confederacy....

It's almost like the so-called "conservatives" and the "confederacy" share the same ideology….

The "Confederacy" was accepted as part of American Heritage, long ago. The respect for their fallen soldiers was morphed into regional pride, as part of the larger American Nationalism, while the reasons for the rebellion became moot and the desire for secession was immediately dropped.



So, yes, Conservatives are looking to conserve this aspect of American history and culture.


ONly a race baiting asshole would find anything wrong with this.

You dic suckers would be the same ones in Germany trying to romanticize the Nazis as just your way of "conserving" culture.....

History has spoken and continues to speak....and you dumb asses continue to be on the wrong side of it..fuk what you talking about

Germans exterminated the Nazi party. If we follow your logic, we should do the same with Democrat party, right?

Alright. I admit, you are making a strong argument there.

It's a goofy argument because his dumb ass was the one whining about it not being about parties...

But when I point out to him that conservatives have been on the wrong side of history over and over again -- now he wants to have a hissy fit about "well maybe we should destroy the Democrat party"

No..America destroyed the Confederacy.....and dic suckers like the both of you keep on trying to defend it...because it is what you conservatives always try to do....defend defeated ideology....

No one is defending their ideology. Did you really miss that?


We are not responsible for the voices in your head.

 

[Ame®icano]

Where have I said Republicans supported confederacy, moron?

Today...in 2020......who are the ones most likely to have a hissy fit whenever a confederate monument is taken down...

A republican

Or

A democrat....


There is no need to go back to what either party did 150 years ago....I am talking today....

It's not about Republican or Democrat, but about history.

As long those monuments are in place, they will remind us of history. Tell me, why are Democrats so eager to remove monuments that are exposing the truth about them?

Are they?

Like what?

You're the asshat that's been trying to rewrite history here and getting your ass handed to you in return soooooo......

Like what? Like that Democrats were pro-slavery, they fought for slavery, they created KKK, they were against civil right...

History is already written, no need for revising it. Democrats will always be in history party of slavery. You can't escape that. We wont let you.

History is indeed already written, so why are you on this message board trying to REwrite it?

Democrats did not "fight for slavery", their position was not slave expansion, and they did not create the KKK, and you've been schooled on ALL of these historical facts REPEATEDLY, yet here you are flinging the same mythological shit hoping it sticks to the wall. Why WOULD it stick to the wall when it's all been disproven? What, do you think the history book is just going to throw out all its evidence and give up after a century and a half, just because YOU posted a wishful-thinking fantasy on a message board?

What kind of hallucinogens are you snorting anyway?

ONCE AGAIN --- what you wrote above was, QUOTE:

why are Democrats so eager to remove monuments that are exposing the truth about them?

Now answer the fucking question and quit pussyfooting.

You're disorganized, you throw too many things together hoping something will stick.

You said: "Democrats did not "fight for slavery". Did they fought to free the slaves perhaps? Please tell us what Democrats did fight for?
You said: "Their position was not slave expansion".Did they fought for slave reduction? Please tell us what was their position?

You said: "What, do you think the history book is just going to throw out all its evidence and give up after a century and a half, just because YOU posted a wishful-thinking fantasy on a message board?"

That is actually what you're doing. We were all OK with history books, as Correll said, for 5 generations. Just now, leftists are trying to revise it, because it doesn't fit their narrative where they are the party of civil rights. More people got educated about Democrat party, more they're running away from them. Especially blacks. Why do you think that is?

 

[Ame®icano]

Slavery was brought to this country before them too. Conservatives were present in the North and South.

Conservatives in the North did not owned the slaves, only those in South did, and yes, they were all Democrats.

Very true
And Democrats in the North did not own slaves

Does that make it a North/South issue?

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

Actually, they weren’t.

Not anymore than northern Democrat’s advocated Jim Crow.

What was consistent was it was a North/South issue

Slavery and Jim Crow were part of the “Peculiar Institution” of the south and had nothing to do with political affiliation

Name political parties in the South at that time.
Now name political party in the South that were against slavery.

Political parties in the South at the time were: Whigs (from about 1830), Democrats (from the 1830s), Know Nothings (1840s-'50s) and minor upstarts. Same as the North with the exception that Republicans organized in 1854 in the north, midwest and west only, and did not organize in the South until after the War. Prior to the 1830s, Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, as in the North, which was the environment when South Carolina first started agitating for secession in 1828.

Great.

You do know why Republican party was established, right? If not, read their platform. If you do know, tell me, why Republicans were not allowed to South until after the war?

And since you listed all those parties, please name all the parties in the South that opposed the slavery. That wont be that hard, right?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Democrats did not bring slavery to this country

That would be Southern Conservatives

Slavery was brought to this country before them too. Conservatives were present in the North and South.

Conservatives in the North did not owned the slaves, only those in South did, and yes, they were all Democrats.

Very true
And Democrats in the North did not own slaves

Does that make it a North/South issue?

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

That's curious, because their (1860) candidate wasn't. As I schooled your sorry ass yesterday and before, the Democrat position was, say it with me, 'popular sovereignty'. That means each new state would choose for itself and the federal government would stay out of their way.

And that's because the Democrats were all about "states rights" and smaller decentralized government, whereas the Whigs, who largely populated the then-new Republican Party, were all about doing big things with a big central government. That's why Buchanan hesitated to act against the uprising South -- he didn't believe the President had the authority. Lincoln did. And yes, Lincoln had been a Whig.

Matter of fact that's pretty much why the South kicked the Democratic Party out --- because they wouldn't take the position of expanding Slavery as you hallucinate here with your pipeful of wishful thinking. As in "I WISH I could rewrite the history books". Whelp --- ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

You schooled me? Right, that's your pipe dream.

And this one is a real gem.

"South kicked the Democratic Party out"

LOL

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

If that is the case, why don't you find statues and monuments of Nazis in Germany. For the simple fact of not all history should be celebrated.

A completely different situation. Literally, EVERYTHING about it, is different.


That you have to have that explained to you, just shows how lib brains don't work.

Both were evil, both committed atrocities, both were traitors. I know that is hard for you to accept.

Well, I guess if you are general enough you can find some similarities.


Yes, in a war, both committed atrocities. Interestingly enough, in both examples, their enemies committed atrocities too. So, I don't know what you think you proved with that one.

Oh, right, you are just a monkey throwing shit against a wall.


Anyway, the two situations were massively different, so only a fucking moron would be surprised to see that the situations evolved differently over time.

Sorry dumbass the 2 belong together in history. Many of the atrocities they committed were before the war even started, but I am pretty sure even a moron like you could figure that out.

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

 

[Pogo]

Today...in 2020......who are the ones most likely to have a hissy fit whenever a confederate monument is taken down...

A republican

Or

A democrat....


There is no need to go back to what either party did 150 years ago....I am talking today....

It's not about Republican or Democrat, but about history.

As long those monuments are in place, they will remind us of history. Tell me, why are Democrats so eager to remove monuments that are exposing the truth about them?

Are they?

Like what?

You're the asshat that's been trying to rewrite history here and getting your ass handed to you in return soooooo......

Like what? Like that Democrats were pro-slavery, they fought for slavery, they created KKK, they were against civil right...

History is already written, no need for revising it. Democrats will always be in history party of slavery. You can't escape that. We wont let you.

History is indeed already written, so why are you on this message board trying to REwrite it?

Democrats did not "fight for slavery", their position was not slave expansion, and they did not create the KKK, and you've been schooled on ALL of these historical facts REPEATEDLY, yet here you are flinging the same mythological shit hoping it sticks to the wall. Why WOULD it stick to the wall when it's all been disproven? What, do you think the history book is just going to throw out all its evidence and give up after a century and a half, just because YOU posted a wishful-thinking fantasy on a message board?

What kind of hallucinogens are you snorting anyway?

ONCE AGAIN --- what you wrote above was, QUOTE:

why are Democrats so eager to remove monuments that are exposing the truth about them?

Now answer the fucking question and quit pussyfooting.

You're disorganized, you throw too many things together hoping something will stick.

You said: "Democrats did not "fight for slavery". Did they fought to free the slaves perhaps? Please tell us what Democrats did fight for?
You said: "Their position was not slave expansion".Did they fought for slave reduction? Please tell us what was their position?

I guess, BEING A RUSSIAN, you wouldn't know about how this stuff works but political parties do not fight wars.
SOLDIERS fight wars. Soldiers have one thing in common with slave-owners, and that is THEY DO NOT NEED A POLITICAL PARTY TO SOLDIER. Most people in fact don't even HAVE a political party. I don't know how it works in your country but we ain't required to do that here. It's just that simple..

I already explained "popular sovereignty' to you over and over, yet here you are going all over again hoping it goes away. Wimp.

You said: "What, do you think the history book is just going to throw out all its evidence and give up after a century and a half, just because YOU posted a wishful-thinking fantasy on a message board?"

That is actually what you're doing. We were all OK with history books, as Correll said, for 5 generations. Just now, leftists are trying to revise it, because it doesn't fit their narrative where they are the party of civil rights. More people got educated about Democrat party, more they're running away from them. Especially blacks. Why do you think that is?

And there it is again --- for the THIRD time now, document that.

And if you're going to troll US message boards you're going to have to learn English. We would say, "More people got educated about the Democrat party". Actually we wouldn't even say that, as there isn't even any such thing as "the Democrat Party". If I were your supervisor at the troll farm I'd suspend you until you learn how to write in English. I know, I know, Russian doesn't use articles. But it's a dead giveaway. Too bad this board won't let me post in Cyrillic because I could fling some appropriate phrases for which this site would ban me if it understood what they meant.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Very true
And Democrats in the North did not own slaves

Does that make it a North/South issue?

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

Actually, they weren’t.

Not anymore than northern Democrat’s advocated Jim Crow.

What was consistent was it was a North/South issue

Slavery and Jim Crow were part of the “Peculiar Institution” of the south and had nothing to do with political affiliation

Name political parties in the South at that time.
Now name political party in the South that were against slavery.

Political parties in the South at the time were: Whigs (from about 1830), Democrats (from the 1830s), Know Nothings (1840s-'50s) and minor upstarts. Same as the North with the exception that Republicans organized in 1854 in the north, midwest and west only, and did not organize in the South until after the War. Prior to the 1830s, Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, as in the North, which was the environment when South Carolina first started agitating for secession in 1828.

Great.

You do know why Republican party was established, right? If not, read their platform. If you do know, tell me, why Republicans were not allowed to South until after the war?

And since you listed all those parties, please name all the parties in the South that opposed the slavery. That wont be that hard, right?

LOL..because they were anti-slavery, idiot. They were the party of Lincoln..and not very welcome in the confederacy, duh!

As to the first Republican Platform..a partial and cogent excerpt follows:

1. That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
2. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that “no persons should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
3. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
4. That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of Non-Intervention and Popular Sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein. . . .

 

[Correll]

Slavery was brought to this country before them too. Conservatives were present in the North and South.

Conservatives in the North did not owned the slaves, only those in South did, and yes, they were all Democrats.

Very true
And Democrats in the North did not own slaves

Does that make it a North/South issue?

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

That's curious, because their (1860) candidate wasn't. As I schooled your sorry ass yesterday and before, the Democrat position was, say it with me, 'popular sovereignty'. That means each new state would choose for itself and the federal government would stay out of their way.

And that's because the Democrats were all about "states rights" and smaller decentralized government, whereas the Whigs, who largely populated the then-new Republican Party, were all about doing big things with a big central government. That's why Buchanan hesitated to act against the uprising South -- he didn't believe the President had the authority. Lincoln did. And yes, Lincoln had been a Whig.

Matter of fact that's pretty much why the South kicked the Democratic Party out --- because they wouldn't take the position of expanding Slavery as you hallucinate here with your pipeful of wishful thinking. As in "I WISH I could rewrite the history books". Whelp --- ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

You schooled me? Right, that's your pipe dream.

And this one is a real gem.

"South kicked the Democratic Party out"

LOL

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Very true
And Democrats in the North did not own slaves

Does that make it a North/South issue?

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

That's curious, because their (1860) candidate wasn't. As I schooled your sorry ass yesterday and before, the Democrat position was, say it with me, 'popular sovereignty'. That means each new state would choose for itself and the federal government would stay out of their way.

And that's because the Democrats were all about "states rights" and smaller decentralized government, whereas the Whigs, who largely populated the then-new Republican Party, were all about doing big things with a big central government. That's why Buchanan hesitated to act against the uprising South -- he didn't believe the President had the authority. Lincoln did. And yes, Lincoln had been a Whig.

Matter of fact that's pretty much why the South kicked the Democratic Party out --- because they wouldn't take the position of expanding Slavery as you hallucinate here with your pipeful of wishful thinking. As in "I WISH I could rewrite the history books". Whelp --- ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

You schooled me? Right, that's your pipe dream.

And this one is a real gem.

"South kicked the Democratic Party out"

LOL

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

You must think that that map somehow bolsters your case..as often as you post it..LOL!

It does not.

 

[Correll]

A completely different situation. Literally, EVERYTHING about it, is different.


That you have to have that explained to you, just shows how lib brains don't work.

Both were evil, both committed atrocities, both were traitors. I know that is hard for you to accept.

Well, I guess if you are general enough you can find some similarities.


Yes, in a war, both committed atrocities. Interestingly enough, in both examples, their enemies committed atrocities too. So, I don't know what you think you proved with that one.

Oh, right, you are just a monkey throwing shit against a wall.


Anyway, the two situations were massively different, so only a fucking moron would be surprised to see that the situations evolved differently over time.

Sorry dumbass the 2 belong together in history. Many of the atrocities they committed were before the war even started, but I am pretty sure even a moron like you could figure that out.

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

 

[Correll]

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

That's curious, because their (1860) candidate wasn't. As I schooled your sorry ass yesterday and before, the Democrat position was, say it with me, 'popular sovereignty'. That means each new state would choose for itself and the federal government would stay out of their way.

And that's because the Democrats were all about "states rights" and smaller decentralized government, whereas the Whigs, who largely populated the then-new Republican Party, were all about doing big things with a big central government. That's why Buchanan hesitated to act against the uprising South -- he didn't believe the President had the authority. Lincoln did. And yes, Lincoln had been a Whig.

Matter of fact that's pretty much why the South kicked the Democratic Party out --- because they wouldn't take the position of expanding Slavery as you hallucinate here with your pipeful of wishful thinking. As in "I WISH I could rewrite the history books". Whelp --- ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

You schooled me? Right, that's your pipe dream.

And this one is a real gem.

"South kicked the Democratic Party out"

LOL

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

You must think that that map somehow bolsters your case..as often as you post it..LOL!

It does not.

You made the claim that the Jim Crow dems left the dem party and went to the GOP, in 1964, "with few exceptions".


Yet, we see Jimmy Carter, a well know supporter of Civil Rights, winning in the South, 12 years later.



So, your claim does not make any sense.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who made decision to secede? Farmers? Trappers? Or politicians?

The rich did. The indolent planter class, as I like to call them. The wealthy who had made and were continuing to make their wealth on the backs of slaves. That element was despised in vast swaths of the South such as where I'm sitting, where the residents were subsistence farming and couldn't afford slaves even if they had wanted to. That's why there was so much resistance --- which bullshit artists like the Lost Cause Cult have clouded over. That's why Andrew Johnson --- you know, Lincoln's Democrat future running mate --- spoke forcefully against secession over those mountains (pointing west) in East Tennessee, where they voted NO on secession to the tune of 95%.

That's why desertion and draft dodging and Home Guards were so prominent. That's why pockets of resistance sprang up all over the South from the Texas Hill country to Searcy County Arkansas to the Free State of Jones in Mississippi to Winston County Alabama to the area around Chattanooga/northeast Georgia, which all stayed loyal to the Union and resisted the Confederacy from inside it. That's why the counties of what is now West Virginia seceded from Virginia in protest, and why the counties of East Tennessee would have done the same thing had they not been occupied by Confederate separatist forces. You see son, when we describe the War as tearing apart families and "brother against brother", that's an internal reference to the South, which was in no way unified in its cause.

Hell, the aforementioned John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party won both Tennessee and Virginia in the 1860 election, and they were against secession.

I can tell by your writing that you're not an American and English is not your first language, so let me explain "Home Guards". These were local militia that wanted no part of war and would defend their homes from EITHER side's army. The two armies were already impersonating each other. Hence the bushwackers.

Correct, rich people made decision, except, mostly rich people were running the country and creating policies. In the south, those were mostly - Democrats.

You said: "Tennessee and Virginia were against secession." That was not a question. They were pro-slavery states, and they fought on confederate side, otherwise they would abolish slavery and join the Union.

Confederacy was political decision, otherwise it wouldn't be feasible.

This is where I can tell you're not from this country. Nobody here talks like that. Looks like you're a Russian, where they're not used to articles -- "Confederacy was political decision" tovarich? BUSTED.

This is what is wrong with you leftists. You imagine something, than you fixate on it. Than you run around claiming that what you imagine is truth. I know, the "Russian collusion" too the tool on you, and left large scars. I would recommend nice and cozy "safe space" until you come back to senses and stop shaking. The other option is to lay off the drugs.

By the way, it's not "tovarich", correct would be "tovarish".

Now, name all political parties in the South at the time. Go.

Already did that above. Perhaps you were lost in your Russian-to-English dictionary.

Riiight... You see, I am not here all day monitoring threads by being paid 2c per post, as you and your buddies are. Some of us are at work and trying to squeeze few posts here and there...

Russians, everywhere...

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

That's curious, because their (1860) candidate wasn't. As I schooled your sorry ass yesterday and before, the Democrat position was, say it with me, 'popular sovereignty'. That means each new state would choose for itself and the federal government would stay out of their way.

And that's because the Democrats were all about "states rights" and smaller decentralized government, whereas the Whigs, who largely populated the then-new Republican Party, were all about doing big things with a big central government. That's why Buchanan hesitated to act against the uprising South -- he didn't believe the President had the authority. Lincoln did. And yes, Lincoln had been a Whig.

Matter of fact that's pretty much why the South kicked the Democratic Party out --- because they wouldn't take the position of expanding Slavery as you hallucinate here with your pipeful of wishful thinking. As in "I WISH I could rewrite the history books". Whelp --- ain't gonna happen. Deal with it.

You schooled me? Right, that's your pipe dream.

And this one is a real gem.

"South kicked the Democratic Party out"

LOL

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

You must think that that map somehow bolsters your case..as often as you post it..LOL!

It does not.

You made the claim that the Jim Crow dems left the dem party and went to the GOP, in 1964, "with few exceptions".


Yet, we see Jimmy Carter, a well know supporter of Civil Rights, winning in the South, 12 years later.



So, your claim does not make any sense.

Huh? It makes perfect sense. Carter..a pro-civil rights Democrat won because he was ..well, first of all..he was southern...much the same reason Clinton won the south. Also, being pro-civil rights..he won the Black vote..those that managed to vote, anyway. The South is loyal to its native sons and daughters.

Ever hear about blue dog Democrats? A completely different breed than their Northern and Western counterparts. They no longer exist..as a force--but they were the Democratic party in transition....still moderate to Conservative--and still uneasy about civil rights and civil liberties.

the Democrats held onto the south for a few more years..but the Conservative strain was strong..and they morphed into the Conservative Republic party.

 

[Pogo]

Very true
And Democrats in the North did not own slaves

Does that make it a North/South issue?

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

Actually, they weren’t.

Not anymore than northern Democrat’s advocated Jim Crow.

What was consistent was it was a North/South issue

Slavery and Jim Crow were part of the “Peculiar Institution” of the south and had nothing to do with political affiliation

Name political parties in the South at that time.
Now name political party in the South that were against slavery.

Political parties in the South at the time were: Whigs (from about 1830), Democrats (from the 1830s), Know Nothings (1840s-'50s) and minor upstarts. Same as the North with the exception that Republicans organized in 1854 in the north, midwest and west only, and did not organize in the South until after the War. Prior to the 1830s, Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, as in the North, which was the environment when South Carolina first started agitating for secession in 1828.

Great.

You do know why Republican party was established, right? If not, read their platform. If you do know, tell me, why Republicans were not allowed to South until after the war?

And since you listed all those parties, please name all the parties in the South that opposed the slavery. That wont be that hard, right?

See that Boris --- you're still not getting it. "Slavery" is a condition. There are nouns to which you prefix an article and nouns where you do not. "Slavery" is a practice. Therefore it's just "Slavery", not "The Slavery". Your Russian keeps seeping through, over and over. But meanwhile "Republican Party" DOES get an article -- therefore "You do know why the Republican Party was established".

Yes, I'm a qualified ESL teacher. And you're clearly in need.

Once again, Slavery (not "the Slavery") was a social issue and religious issue, not a political one, before the Liberty Party emerged in 1840 with that goal. The Liberty Party didn't attract much support in its time and some of them re-formed late in the 1840s as the Free Soil Party and nominated Martin van Buren to run as its Presidential candidate (fun fact: van Buren organized the Democratic Party). The Free Soilers also didn't go far and merged with the then-new Republican Party in 1854. Some of them went on to prominence in politics such as Charles Sumner and Salmon P. Chase, who was a Governor, Senator, Secretary of the Treasury and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Chase had been a Whig, a Liberty, a Free Soiler, a Republican and a Democrat, in that order.

Because what changes through all of this is TIME, not fucking political parties. The TIME of 1840 was not conducive to abolitionism; the TIME of 1848 still wasn't. By the 1850s and "Bleeding Kansas" (which was not in Missouri), and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and John Brown's insurrection, the TIME had become more conducive.

 

[Pogo]

Who made decision to secede? Farmers? Trappers? Or politicians?

The rich did. The indolent planter class, as I like to call them. The wealthy who had made and were continuing to make their wealth on the backs of slaves. That element was despised in vast swaths of the South such as where I'm sitting, where the residents were subsistence farming and couldn't afford slaves even if they had wanted to. That's why there was so much resistance --- which bullshit artists like the Lost Cause Cult have clouded over. That's why Andrew Johnson --- you know, Lincoln's Democrat future running mate --- spoke forcefully against secession over those mountains (pointing west) in East Tennessee, where they voted NO on secession to the tune of 95%.

That's why desertion and draft dodging and Home Guards were so prominent. That's why pockets of resistance sprang up all over the South from the Texas Hill country to Searcy County Arkansas to the Free State of Jones in Mississippi to Winston County Alabama to the area around Chattanooga/northeast Georgia, which all stayed loyal to the Union and resisted the Confederacy from inside it. That's why the counties of what is now West Virginia seceded from Virginia in protest, and why the counties of East Tennessee would have done the same thing had they not been occupied by Confederate separatist forces. You see son, when we describe the War as tearing apart families and "brother against brother", that's an internal reference to the South, which was in no way unified in its cause.

Hell, the aforementioned John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party won both Tennessee and Virginia in the 1860 election, and they were against secession.

I can tell by your writing that you're not an American and English is not your first language, so let me explain "Home Guards". These were local militia that wanted no part of war and would defend their homes from EITHER side's army. The two armies were already impersonating each other. Hence the bushwackers.

Correct, rich people made decision, except, mostly rich people were running the country and creating policies. In the south, those were mostly - Democrats.

You said: "Tennessee and Virginia were against secession." That was not a question. They were pro-slavery states, and they fought on confederate side, otherwise they would abolish slavery and join the Union.

Confederacy was political decision, otherwise it wouldn't be feasible.

This is where I can tell you're not from this country. Nobody here talks like that. Looks like you're a Russian, where they're not used to articles -- "Confederacy was political decision" tovarich? BUSTED.

This is what is wrong with you leftists. You imagine something, than you fixate on it. Than you run around claiming that what you imagine is truth. I know, the "Russian collusion" too the tool on you, and left large scars. I would recommend nice and cozy "safe space" until you come back to senses and stop shaking. The other option is to lay off the drugs.

By the way, it's not "tovarich", correct would be "tovarish".

Now, name all political parties in the South at the time. Go.

Already did that above. Perhaps you were lost in your Russian-to-English dictionary.

Riiight... You see, I am not here all day monitoring threads by being paid 2c per post, as you and your buddies are. Some of us are at work and trying to squeeze few posts here and there...

Russians, everywhere...

View attachment 305894

If you're not Russian, why are you deliberately writing like one?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Democrats in the North were pro slavery and for expansion of slavery to the territories, and because of that they stayed Democrats, otherwise they would leave the party. Beside, they couldn't own the slaves above Mason-Dixon line.

Actually, they weren’t.

Not anymore than northern Democrat’s advocated Jim Crow.

What was consistent was it was a North/South issue

Slavery and Jim Crow were part of the “Peculiar Institution” of the south and had nothing to do with political affiliation

Name political parties in the South at that time.
Now name political party in the South that were against slavery.

Political parties in the South at the time were: Whigs (from about 1830), Democrats (from the 1830s), Know Nothings (1840s-'50s) and minor upstarts. Same as the North with the exception that Republicans organized in 1854 in the north, midwest and west only, and did not organize in the South until after the War. Prior to the 1830s, Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, as in the North, which was the environment when South Carolina first started agitating for secession in 1828.

Great.

You do know why Republican party was established, right? If not, read their platform. If you do know, tell me, why Republicans were not allowed to South until after the war?

And since you listed all those parties, please name all the parties in the South that opposed the slavery. That wont be that hard, right?

See that Boris --- you're still not getting it. "Slavery" is a condition. There are nouns to which you prefix an article and nouns where you do not. "Slavery" is a practice. Therefore it's just "Slavery", not "The Slavery". Your Russian keeps seeping through, over and over. But meanwhile "Republican Party" DOES get an article -- therefore "You do know why the Republican Party was established".

Yes, I'm a qualified ESL teacher. And you're clearly in need.

Once again, Slavery (not "the Slavery") was a social issue and religious issue, not a political one, before the Liberty Party emerged in 1840 with that goal. The Liberty Party didn't attract much support in its time and some of them re-formed late in the 1840s as the Free Soil Party and nominated Martin van Buren to run as its Presidential candidate (fun fact: van Buren organized the Democratic Party). The Free Soilers also didn't go far and merged with the then-new Republican Party in 1854. Some of them went on to prominence in politics such as Charles Sumner and Salmon P. Chase, who was a Governor, Senator, Secretary of the Treasury and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Chase had been a Whig, a Liberty, a Free Soiler, a Republican and a Democrat, in that order.

Because what changes through all of this is TIME, not fucking political parties. The TIME of 1840 was not conducive to abolitionism; the TIME of 1848 still wasn't. By the 1850s and "Bleeding Kansas" (which was not in Missouri), and "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and John Brown's insurrection, the TIME had become more conducive.

Correct. It bears stating that slavery was always an issue in the US..from its inception. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention almost split over the issue..and the country would never have been born had not a compromise been enacted. Many delegates felt that the institution of slavery made a mockery of the phrase 'All men are created equal".