Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Pogo]

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.

Actually, add up your own numbers. Most of Carter's electoral votes there come from outside the South.

The ones from inside can be largely attributed to regionality. Carter was the first candidate with a Southern heritage since Woodrow Wilson.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

 

[Correll]

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.

So, being a southern was more important than his support for Civil Rights?


That does not support your narrative of a region so seething with racism, that the voters and politicians switched parties en mass based on that one issue.

 

[Correll]

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.

Actually, add up your own numbers. Most of Carter's electoral votes there come from outside the South.

The ones from inside can be largely attributed to regionality. Carter was the first candidate with a Southern heritage since Woodrow Wilson.

My point was not that the South won the election for him, but that the South was still happy to vote dem, 12 years after Evil claimed that they turned on the dems in a racist rage.


As you say, the South was happy to vote for the Southern Boy, even though he was very pro-Civil Rights.



This undermines the narrative of the South being driven by racism, or "flipped" by racism.


That is the point, would you like to address it?

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Jimmy Carter was and is an evangelical Christian...that was part of his appeal when he ran for office in 76....

He also ran as an "outsider" who would clean up Washington...then he chose Mondale as his running mate for his "LIBERAL" policy record...

However, us even talking about Jimmy Carter is just further evidence of just how far off the road conservatives are willing to go to defend their civil war confederate porn.....

They still cant address the fact that it was and always will be the conservatives that have been against nearly every emancipation effort by a historically oppressed minority group....period...

You can whine all day "but but Democrats started slavery, therefore democrats are racist"

But does that same BS go for labor rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc?? -- you gonna blame all of that on "democrats" too -- because simply saying that it was the conservatives who have been against civil rights for all of these groups is just too triggering for today's conservative...for some reason, they find it too hard to say "hey, the conservative position back then was wrong"

 

[rightwinger]

republicans who supported the confederacy? but hated slavery?

democrats who WANTED slaves and slavery but FOUGHT against the confederacy?


you are truly deranged


and THAT is why you vote trump

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.

No, actually it was southerners

Republicans in the south were against civil rights, Many, many Republicans belonged to the KKK......they still do

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

The South formed a nation that was 40 percent in slavery. They designed that Confederation to ensure those people remained in slavery

 

[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...

View attachment 305894

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

It seems THAT is your argument for this thread. When you can't make it, you turn to labeling and name calling. Let's try it...

If you're not faggot, why are you writing like one? Deliberately or not.

 

[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.

No, actually it was southerners

Republicans in the south were against civil rights, Many, many Republicans belonged to the KKK......they still do

OK, if you say so...

Let's list names of ALL known KKK grand wizards, and dragons and add party affiliation next to their names.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

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.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

 

[rightwinger]

Virginia is an independent state

They can decide which people they honor and which holidays they celebrate

 

[Toro]

Virginia eliminates holiday celebrating two Confederate generals


Dems in Virginia show their hatred for the constitution and the patriotic spirit of America by once again attacking the Confederacy...This time they do it not be taking down a statue, or changing a state flag, they do it by eliminating perhaps the greatest American holiday aside from Independence Day and American Jesus' birthday....and that is....Confederate Day...

"The Virginia House passed a bill that would eliminate a holiday celebrating two Confederate leaders and instead make Election Day a state holiday. Lee-Jackson Day honored Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson...Now, Virginia will no longer observe Lee-Jackson Day as a state holiday, but they won't be one holiday short. Election day, which takes place nationwide on the first Tuesday in November, will become a state holiday, WTVR reports."

WTF?? A holiday for elections?? Once again, the party of slavery shows its ugly face..First you dems lost the Civil War and you lost your slaves...and even today, you Dems are losing more slaves (As in blacks) -- since they are leaving the Democrat plantation and voting for Trump.....and when blacks find out about Confederate Day being eliminated for Election Day -- I anticipate even more of them will be outraged and join the republican party in protest...

So now out of desperation, you want to dishonor the legacy of the 2 greatest abolitionist Democrats ever by doing something like this? Just to make it easier for more people (and by more people, I mean illegals and muslims) to vote in future elections by making election day a freaking holiday??

Remember this face....this is the America hating black racist that crafted this bill...State Senator Louise Lucas......This is the proof that the Democrat party, the party of slavery, the party against American values continues to attack and erase the very thing that made America great -- the Confederacy...
View attachment 305328

Soooooooooooo

A patriot is someone who tried to break up the country?

lol

Riiiiiiiiight!

 

[Pogo]

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.

I said no such thing. I said Tennessee and Virginia both voted for John Bell, whose Constitutional Union Party was Unionist. Kentucky also did. And btw Tennessee didn't last long as a fighting part of the Confederacy anyway. I also said that Bell was a slaveowner, which put the lie to your "they were all Democrats" song and dance. Not only do you try to rewrite American history, you're trying to rewrite posts sitting right here in this thread. And then you're presenting the rewrites to the guy who wrote something else, apparently thinking I'll go along with it even though I WROTE THEM and damn well know better. You must be an idiot.

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

Spaseebo. I gave you a couple of English lessons, a Russian lesson is fair compensation.

 

[22lcidw]

Virginia is an independent state

They can decide which people they honor and which holidays they celebrate

All of those Red counties and they are going with a whimper to the few Blue counties that control the state. My tough brother in law is not to be heard it seems.

 

[Pogo]

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".

As indeed it did. "All Men are created equal" in fact sums up the philosophy of Liberalism that created this country, and that's why the Republicans of 1860, in calling for Abolition, were the Liberals of their time.

 

[rightwinger]

I thought both Lee and Jackson were Democrats

So what is unpatriotic in Democrat’s removing their holiday

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually, add up your own numbers. Most of Carter's electoral votes there come from outside the South.

The ones from inside can be largely attributed to regionality. Carter was the first candidate with a Southern heritage since Woodrow Wilson.

My point was not that the South won the election for him, but that the South was still happy to vote dem, 12 years after Evil claimed that they turned on the dems in a racist rage.

As you say, the South was happy to vote for the Southern Boy, even though he was very pro-Civil Rights.

This undermines the narrative of the South being driven by racism, or "flipped" by racism.

That is the point, would you like to address it?

Okay.

Regionality counts for a lot -- see also Clinton, Wallace, the "Dixiecrats".

Who the opposition was in that election also counts for a lot. For example, for all of LBJ's yuge margin of victory in 1964, a considerable chunk of the South voted for the Republican, Goldwater. In fact all the states BG won outside his own were in the South. And that's because BG voted and spoke against the Civil Right Act. Which kind of nullifies your point about Carter in 1976.

Then there's the opposition. Carter's opponent was Gerald Ford, who didn't exactly personally relate to Southerners on anywhere near Carter's level. Neither did HW Bush in 1992. Then consider 1968, when George Wallace, who certainly did, siphoned off votes to the right-wing fringe "American Independent Party", taking a chunk of the Southern vote that but for the presence of a regional candidate from the "Heart of Dixie", would have gone to the Democrat or the Republican (Humphrey and Nixon, neither of whom related personally to the South). The "he's one of us" factor is Yuge.

Wallace at the time was a stanch segregationist (as was Thurmond in 1948, same effect as above), so here we can see the racist vote at work in three different elections (1948, 1964, 1968). In between those last two, Thurmond, the 1948 rabble rouser, made it actually thinkable to join the 'party of Lincoln', and that exodus began, a trickle at first. Wallace nearly beat him to it when he offered himself to Barry Goldwater to be BG's running mate, offering to switch parties to do that. But clearly the agenda of the hyperconservative racists like Thurmond was not going to be met by the Democratic Party (which he should have learned in 1948 and acted on at the time but relented later, sort of), so they gradually divorced. By 1976 that divorce was well under way, to the point where Carter's "he's one of us" factor could hold sway.

Time is another significant factor. A lot can change in twelve years especially when significant agitation is committed to it, and in the late 1960s-early 1970s a *LOT* of such agitation was going on.

Fatter o' mact, just reading the post above this one reminds me that Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union army but declined in favor of his State instead, underscoring the point that regionality is a heavy factor.

 

[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?

It seems THAT is your argument for this thread. When you can't make it, you turn to labeling and name calling. Let's try it...

If you're not faggot, why are you writing like one? Deliberately or not.

.
"Russian" is not name-calling. It's a simple observation of your writing, specifically your inability to handle articles.

 

[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.

No, actually it was southerners

Republicans in the south were against civil rights, Many, many Republicans belonged to the KKK......they still do

OK, if you say so...

Let's list names of ALL known KKK grand wizards, and dragons and add party affiliation next to their names.

Names you want? Here, I got some names for your ass.

• D.C. Stephenson
• Clarence Morley
• Owen Brewster
• Ben Paulen
• George Luis Baker
• Albert Johnson
• Charles Bowles
• Ed Jackson
• Rice Means

All of those were political operators associated with the Klan. Governors, Senators, Congressmen, a mayor and a state machine boss. Guess which one on that list was not a Republican.

Spoiler: Check your answer here

Answer: Charles Bowles (he had no party)