150 Years ago today US Army Fort Sumter SC was attacked by south states coward Slavery supporting mili tants starting the Civil War. The United States defeated the cowards ending slavery. What did your ancestors do to help end the evil of Slavery in the United States ? Thank you for your family's service.
In 1965 the Dixiecrats swore that if LBJ passed the Voting Rights Act that they would defect to the Republican Party. Since then the KKK has owned the GOP as you can see from the positions of the GOP and Tea Party. But the demographics are against the KKK since the children of the New South have spawned the 2nd generation of non-White-racist Southern Whites. If the trend continues, the KKK will lose the GOP and the South in 10 years. Bottom line is the Ku Klux Klan and GOP are finished. Time marches on.
It was a highly treasonous act that reflects on a very dark period in our country's history. We can only thank God that the forces of good defeated the evil forces supporting slavery. Could you imagine the evil that would have existed and shape shape of the country if the South had won?
God Bless America wrote:
150 Years ago today US Army Fort Sumter SC was attacked by south states coward Slavery supporting mili tants starting the Civil War. The United States defeated the cowards ending slavery. What did your ancestors do to help end the evil of Slavery in the United States ? Thank you for your family's service.
Maybe its because the Republicans voted against civil rights act and until very recently thought it was a great idea to fly the treasonous confederate flags at state buildings.
Illogical wrote:
I vote Republican. Never forget that those were Democrats who opposed abolition. And they continued their discriminatory ways over 100 years after the Civil War. The name Democrat is and always will be synonymous with slavery, oppression and discrimination. The Democrats burned the houses, churches and raped the children of those who were slaves and those who opposed slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. The KKK were Democrats. How a black man could run for president under the name Democrat is beyond me. I guess Obama doesn't care that the party he represents has the blood of black negro slaves indelibly imbeded in the pores of their skin.
Marcus T Cicero wrote:
It was a highly treasonous act that reflects on a very dark period in our country's history. We can only thank God that the forces of good defeated the evil forces supporting slavery.
Could you imagine the evil that would have existed and shape shape of the country if the South had won?
It was also a highly treasonous act to sign the Declaration of Independence. And I'm sure that's what many of them thought they were fighting for, independence once again. Freedom from a tyrant. That's how they saw Lincoln. Another King George III.
It is interesting to think of what our country would be like if the South had one. Slavery would have still been abolished imo, it would have just taken longer. But I do wonder if we would have 2 countries today. There would have probably been a huge wall created right across the middle of American.
Marcus T Cicero wrote:
Maybe its because the Republicans voted against civil rights act
Eisenhower, a Republican, signed the first civil rights act. Johnson, a Democrat in the senate at the time, inserted language taking the effectiveness out of that legislation.
You are full of lies and bullshit. The South were raping their slaves like the ancestors of European North & South whites had been raped in Europe by Mongols, knights, soldiers, kings, tyrants. People in the North felt blessed and delivered from evil by God. They saw the South as the European evil their grandparents and parents had left less than a century before. If not for the North, the evil of slavery would have continued and that could not be allowed. That's would be a violation of every principal known to mankind. That would be against the reason why we came to America, to be free people.
Nope. Hawaii was the 1st state to oust white racist rule. Japanese-Americans took over the power structure in the state house and elected every US congress member from Hawaii in 1950. In 1950, the United States consisted of 49 white ruled states and one Japanese (not Asians, it was Japanese solely in power) ruled state. Eisenhower was not elected until 1953
Hey Time marches on, I've posted several times on this post. If you want to respond to something specific try clicking on that little "quote" box rather than constantly babbling on incoherently.
Lincoln did not campaign against slavery. He only expressed opposition to the expansion of slavery outside the 8 states where it was legal. Indeed, he supported the Corwin Amendment.
Illogical wrote:
Please tell me you can do better than that. Even the raving lunatic "Slime marches on" is more entertaining.
Oh I can definitely do better, but I thought I should dumb it down considering the target audience. Ha ha!
Zinn wrote:
Following this logic, all people of non-Native American descent should up and move back to where they came from.
Umm, you do realize that the "Native Americans" came from somewhere else, don't you?
The freak show has arrived. Tick tock, tick tock. Come on, where's that psycho babble you're about to dazzle us with?
Any one that thinks the civil war was over slavers is ignorant of reality and ignorant of history. The civil war was about Washington telling everyone how to live and what they could and could not do. Most southern leaders would have done away with slavery had the confederacy won, several said so openly and several said it should have been done before the war even began. So, yes, in grade school the public education system teaches you the civil war was about slavery and that is it. If you actually read what people from the time period, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WAR, had to say about it and why they were fighting, slavery was not the reason, the majority of northerners did not disagree with slavery, the majority of southerners did not fight to save it. It was a war for states rights, period. The states lost and Washington has become an imperial capital sense then, ever increasing in power and reach and control. If you don't believe me go actually read about it and study it.
The North has always had - and still does have - a major Napoleon complex.
Southern people are, by and large, content with the way things are. They are happy. Sure, there are outliers - the Nazi scum KKK, gang bangers, meth heads - but every section of the country has those people.
Black people, white people and now even Hispanic people seem to get along with each other for the most part. Their kids go to school together, they all shop together in the Piggly Wiggly. Life is good.
The North is where the damn whites have to have their own schools, store, neighborhoods, etc. What a bunch of racist twats.
That's true. The North today is much more segregated than the South.
Illogical wrote:
I vote Republican. Never forget that those were Democrats who opposed abolition. And they continued their discriminatory ways over 100 years after the Civil War. The name Democrat is and always will be synonymous with slavery, oppression and discrimination. The Democrats burned the houses, churches and raped the children of those who were slaves and those who opposed slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. The KKK were Democrats. How a black man could run for president under the name Democrat is beyond me. I guess Obama doesn't care that the party he represents has the blood of black negro slaves indelibly imbeded in the pores of their skin.
I know people (including politicians who like to invoke their relationship to gloried past) like to bring this up, but, really, doesn't the historic shifts in party systems (we've been through, what, 2 or 3 since Lincoln?) render this moot? The GOP today isn't the GOP of antebellum. Or the Democratic party, for that matter.
The GOP isn't even the GOP of W's era - we're in the midst of a party system shift at this very moment.
Earth to idiot wrote:
Umm, you do realize that the "Native Americans" came from somewhere else, don't you?
Ummmm, so your point is what? That the first people to discover a land are not entitled to it because they came from somewhere else? So Englishman should be divested of England and sent back to the Horn of Africa because thats where they came from? Or that non-violent discovery by Native Americans of uninhabited land is equivalent to the genocide perpetrated by early Americans who found an inhabited land?
ah, couldn't stand the heat of someone putting you in your place? Who whined and cried and called the conservative mod police to delete my posts?
Pathetic right wing pussies.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
ah, couldn't stand the heat of someone putting you in your place? Who whined and cried and called the conservative mod police to delete my posts?
Pathetic right wing pussies.
You do realize the irony of posting far-left posts while invoking the name of Rexing, right?