Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[Correll]

You honestly don't know Democrats were against the CRA of 1964? ...

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

Cherry picking your data again

If the Dems opposed the CRA

1. Why did more Dems than Republicans vote for it?
2. Why did the south blame the CRA on the Dems and turn Republican?
3. Why did a Dem sign the bill into law?

1. I did not claim that the dems opposed the CRA.

2. This is math. Where one group is sufficiently larger than another group, it can have a lower percentage of something, like support for a bill, and still have a higher ABSOLUTE NUMBER of something. I know you are smart enough to understand this. Stop playing stupid.

3. The alliance of the rural South and the Norther Urban dems was an unnatural one based solely on the Northern Dems support of racist policies. With that agreement broken, the alliance was broken. The racists thus were out in the cold without a voice and stopped functioning as an effective political bloc.

4. Johnson wanted to pander for black votes.

 

[Correll]

You honestly don't know Democrats were against the CRA of 1964? ...

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

The usual Republican doubletalk....Why, I personally support Civil Rights but I think it is up to the states to decide what rights their citizens can have

What a spineless copout

HE was afraid that title 4 would lead to racial quotas.


Try to be less dishonest.

 

[rightwinger]

More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans.

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

Cherry picking your data again

If the Dems opposed the CRA

1. Why did more Dems than Republicans vote for it?
2. Why did the south blame the CRA on the Dems and turn Republican?
3. Why did a Dem sign the bill into law?

1. I did not claim that the dems opposed the CRA.

2. This is math. Where one group is sufficiently larger than another group, it can have a lower percentage of something, like support for a bill, and still have a higher ABSOLUTE NUMBER of something. I know you are smart enough to understand this. Stop playing stupid.

3. The alliance of the rural South and the Norther Urban dems was an unnatural one based solely on the Northern Dems support of racist policies. With that agreement broken, the alliance was broken. The racists thus were out in the cold without a voice and stopped functioning as an effective political bloc.

4. Johnson wanted to pander for black votes.

Johnson was a pragmatist. Why would he sacrifice the entire south just to pick up black votes? Blacks had been voting Democratic since FDR

Johnson supported Civil Rights because it was the right thing to do. His writings and presidential documents show that

 

[Divine Wind]

I see no difference between political extremists except their polarity. Their tactics and desire for authoritarianistic power are the same.

I just want to be left alone by the Private Prison Industry and Nanny Government so I can smoke marijuana without worrying about some Jackwagon throwback to Medieval times like Beauregard Sessions wanting to send the storm troopers against me and my posse ...

Something we can agree upon. The problem is that both the DNC and RNC have moved to opposite political extremes while simultaneously moving up on the authoritarian scale. Nanny Statism and Private Prisons are wrong, but are both supported by the DNC and RNC.

 

[rightwinger]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

 

[BlindBoo]

Confederate Monuments are Participation Trophies for the Losers...You Lost Bigly ...Sad ..weak ...Losers

The one the just removed in N.O. was erected after the White Supremacist won back control. The struggle didn't end in 1877, that's just when a new phase began. 1877 was when the occupation troops left La.

 

[Correll]

Only because it was a democratic congress.

Percentage wise support for the bill was stronger among the GOP than in the heavily split dnc.

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

Cherry picking your data again

If the Dems opposed the CRA

1. Why did more Dems than Republicans vote for it?
2. Why did the south blame the CRA on the Dems and turn Republican?
3. Why did a Dem sign the bill into law?

1. I did not claim that the dems opposed the CRA.

2. This is math. Where one group is sufficiently larger than another group, it can have a lower percentage of something, like support for a bill, and still have a higher ABSOLUTE NUMBER of something. I know you are smart enough to understand this. Stop playing stupid.

3. The alliance of the rural South and the Norther Urban dems was an unnatural one based solely on the Northern Dems support of racist policies. With that agreement broken, the alliance was broken. The racists thus were out in the cold without a voice and stopped functioning as an effective political bloc.

4. Johnson wanted to pander for black votes.

Johnson was a pragmatist. Why would he sacrifice the entire south just to pick up black votes? Blacks had been voting Democratic since FDR

Johnson supported Civil Rights because it was the right thing to do. His writings and presidential documents show that

So which was it, was he a "pragmatist" or was he an idealist?

Did he think he could abandon the Dems base of support in the SOuth, ie racist whites and keep the south?

 

[BlindBoo]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

And all the bells was ringing........

 

[Correll]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

By focusing on the bravery of the soldiers and the cultural heritage of the South, and pretty much ignoring the institute of slavery, the southerns of the late 1800s pretty much already made that leap.


What this is really about for you lefties is smearing your modern day enemies and undermining American History.

 

[Correll]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

And all the bells was ringing........

NOte the focus on the soldiers, the fight, and the complete absence of any racism or reference to slavery.

 

[rightwinger]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

By focusing on the bravery of the soldiers and the cultural heritage of the South, and pretty much ignoring the institute of slavery, the southerns of the late 1800s pretty much already made that leap.


What this is really about for you lefties is smearing your modern day enemies and undermining American History.

Seems more like they whitewashed history to create the image of a Grand Confederacy. It was not grand, it was an abomination created to ensure slavery would exist forever.

Their REAL heroes were the blacks and civil rights workers who stood up and risked their lives to put an end to Jim Crow

 

[rightwinger]

Forgetting that you lied when you said "More Democrats voted for the CRA than republicans" --

Q: Who was the GOP candidate in 1964, and was he for or against the CRA?

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

Cherry picking your data again

If the Dems opposed the CRA

1. Why did more Dems than Republicans vote for it?
2. Why did the south blame the CRA on the Dems and turn Republican?
3. Why did a Dem sign the bill into law?

1. I did not claim that the dems opposed the CRA.

2. This is math. Where one group is sufficiently larger than another group, it can have a lower percentage of something, like support for a bill, and still have a higher ABSOLUTE NUMBER of something. I know you are smart enough to understand this. Stop playing stupid.

3. The alliance of the rural South and the Norther Urban dems was an unnatural one based solely on the Northern Dems support of racist policies. With that agreement broken, the alliance was broken. The racists thus were out in the cold without a voice and stopped functioning as an effective political bloc.

4. Johnson wanted to pander for black votes.

Johnson was a pragmatist. Why would he sacrifice the entire south just to pick up black votes? Blacks had been voting Democratic since FDR

Johnson supported Civil Rights because it was the right thing to do. His writings and presidential documents show that

So which was it, was he a "pragmatist" or was he an idealist?

Did he think he could abandon the Dems base of support in the SOuth, ie racist whites and keep the south?

LBJ was willing to sacrifice Democratic control of the south, what used to be called "the solid south" for the Democrats in order to do what was right. He realized the time had come to insist on civil rights no matter how much it offended the grand southern tradition of segregation

 

[BlindBoo]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

And all the bells was ringing........

NOte the focus on the soldiers, the fight, and the complete absence of any racism or reference to slavery.

"Old Dixie" is reference enough. They weren't just defeated they were driven down in a war of attrition.

 

[Correll]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

By focusing on the bravery of the soldiers and the cultural heritage of the South, and pretty much ignoring the institute of slavery, the southerns of the late 1800s pretty much already made that leap.


What this is really about for you lefties is smearing your modern day enemies and undermining American History.

Seems more like they whitewashed history to create the image of a Grand Confederacy. It was not grand, it was an abomination created to ensure slavery would exist forever.

Their REAL heroes were the blacks and civil rights workers who stood up and risked their lives to put an end to Jim Crow

As a region, the South of that time had taken horrific casualties and were experiencing great and long term economic pain.

That they and the NOrth were able to heal those wounds and put the past behind them, is a masterpiece of political brilliance and goodwill.

For you, many generations after the fact, to monday morning quarterback on how they did it, and how well they did it, is laughably arrogant and stupid.


Or would be except you are actually managing to divide and damage this nation with your race baiting and finger pointing.

 

[Correll]

1. Wasn't me that said that.

2. Goldwater, A. wasn't against the CRA for racist reasons, and B. was pro-civil rights before and after that specific bill.

My point stands. Percentage wise, support for the CRA was stronger in the GOP than the dems.


And indeed, the dems were, at that point in time, Johnny Come Latelys, to supporting Civil Rights compared to the GOP.

Cherry picking your data again

If the Dems opposed the CRA

1. Why did more Dems than Republicans vote for it?
2. Why did the south blame the CRA on the Dems and turn Republican?
3. Why did a Dem sign the bill into law?

1. I did not claim that the dems opposed the CRA.

2. This is math. Where one group is sufficiently larger than another group, it can have a lower percentage of something, like support for a bill, and still have a higher ABSOLUTE NUMBER of something. I know you are smart enough to understand this. Stop playing stupid.

3. The alliance of the rural South and the Norther Urban dems was an unnatural one based solely on the Northern Dems support of racist policies. With that agreement broken, the alliance was broken. The racists thus were out in the cold without a voice and stopped functioning as an effective political bloc.

4. Johnson wanted to pander for black votes.

Johnson was a pragmatist. Why would he sacrifice the entire south just to pick up black votes? Blacks had been voting Democratic since FDR

Johnson supported Civil Rights because it was the right thing to do. His writings and presidential documents show that

So which was it, was he a "pragmatist" or was he an idealist?

Did he think he could abandon the Dems base of support in the SOuth, ie racist whites and keep the south?

LBJ was willing to sacrifice Democratic control of the south, what used to be called "the solid south" for the Democrats in order to do what was right. He realized the time had come to insist on civil rights no matter how much it offended the grand southern tradition of segregation

That is not pragmatic. That is idealistic.

You just claimed above that he was pragmatic. Why did you claim that?

 

[Correll]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

And all the bells was ringing........

NOte the focus on the soldiers, the fight, and the complete absence of any racism or reference to slavery.

"Old Dixie" is reference enough. They weren't just defeated they were driven down in a war of attrition.

The song goes on and on about the fighting and the suffering of that "war of attrition".

It makes no reference to slavery or racism.

 

[edward37]

Confederate Monuments are Participation Trophies for the Losers...You Lost Bigly ...Sad ..weak ...Losers

The one the just removed in N.O. was erected after the White Supremacist won back control. The struggle didn't end in 1877, that's just when a new phase began. 1877 was when the occupation troops left La.

I was in the service at Ft Bliss in El Paso when no blacks could go to any bars They all had to go into Mexico,
Juarez So not so long ago racism flourished

 

[rightwinger]

Cherry picking your data again

If the Dems opposed the CRA

1. Why did more Dems than Republicans vote for it?
2. Why did the south blame the CRA on the Dems and turn Republican?
3. Why did a Dem sign the bill into law?

1. I did not claim that the dems opposed the CRA.

2. This is math. Where one group is sufficiently larger than another group, it can have a lower percentage of something, like support for a bill, and still have a higher ABSOLUTE NUMBER of something. I know you are smart enough to understand this. Stop playing stupid.

3. The alliance of the rural South and the Norther Urban dems was an unnatural one based solely on the Northern Dems support of racist policies. With that agreement broken, the alliance was broken. The racists thus were out in the cold without a voice and stopped functioning as an effective political bloc.

4. Johnson wanted to pander for black votes.

Johnson was a pragmatist. Why would he sacrifice the entire south just to pick up black votes? Blacks had been voting Democratic since FDR

Johnson supported Civil Rights because it was the right thing to do. His writings and presidential documents show that

So which was it, was he a "pragmatist" or was he an idealist?

Did he think he could abandon the Dems base of support in the SOuth, ie racist whites and keep the south?

LBJ was willing to sacrifice Democratic control of the south, what used to be called "the solid south" for the Democrats in order to do what was right. He realized the time had come to insist on civil rights no matter how much it offended the grand southern tradition of segregation

That is not pragmatic. That is idealistic.

You just claimed above that he was pragmatic. Why did you claim that?

Acknowledging that the days of Jim Crow were over was pragmatic. Those in the south were unwilling to accept it

 

[rightwinger]

The South should be celebrating moving beyond their racist past. Embrace the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights era. Make monuments to key Civil Rights leaders not to those who fought to maintain a slave state

By focusing on the bravery of the soldiers and the cultural heritage of the South, and pretty much ignoring the institute of slavery, the southerns of the late 1800s pretty much already made that leap.


What this is really about for you lefties is smearing your modern day enemies and undermining American History.

Seems more like they whitewashed history to create the image of a Grand Confederacy. It was not grand, it was an abomination created to ensure slavery would exist forever.

Their REAL heroes were the blacks and civil rights workers who stood up and risked their lives to put an end to Jim Crow

As a region, the South of that time had taken horrific casualties and were experiencing great and long term economic pain.

That they and the NOrth were able to heal those wounds and put the past behind them, is a masterpiece of political brilliance and goodwill.

For you, many generations after the fact, to monday morning quarterback on how they did it, and how well they did it, is laughably arrogant and stupid.


Or would be except you are actually managing to divide and damage this nation with your race baiting and finger pointing.

The south paid a heavy price for their little "experiment"
They threw a temper tantrum when Lincoln got elected and tried to take their ball and go home. The rest of the world abandoned slavery without bloodshed.....the South was unwilling to do it without a fight. A fight that cost 600,000 lives for no reason

The Confederacy is not something that should be celebrated

 

[Correll]

1. I did not claim that the dems opposed the CRA.

2. This is math. Where one group is sufficiently larger than another group, it can have a lower percentage of something, like support for a bill, and still have a higher ABSOLUTE NUMBER of something. I know you are smart enough to understand this. Stop playing stupid.

3. The alliance of the rural South and the Norther Urban dems was an unnatural one based solely on the Northern Dems support of racist policies. With that agreement broken, the alliance was broken. The racists thus were out in the cold without a voice and stopped functioning as an effective political bloc.

4. Johnson wanted to pander for black votes.

Johnson was a pragmatist. Why would he sacrifice the entire south just to pick up black votes? Blacks had been voting Democratic since FDR

Johnson supported Civil Rights because it was the right thing to do. His writings and presidential documents show that

So which was it, was he a "pragmatist" or was he an idealist?

Did he think he could abandon the Dems base of support in the SOuth, ie racist whites and keep the south?

LBJ was willing to sacrifice Democratic control of the south, what used to be called "the solid south" for the Democrats in order to do what was right. He realized the time had come to insist on civil rights no matter how much it offended the grand southern tradition of segregation

That is not pragmatic. That is idealistic.

You just claimed above that he was pragmatic. Why did you claim that?

Acknowledging that the days of Jim Crow were over was pragmatic. Those in the south were unwilling to accept it

So, the dems held to Jim Crow as long as they could and then when defeat was inevitable, FINALLY switched sides.

Well, better than going down with the ship I guess.

So, where was the idealism then?