hah ! JR is a Cali boy now.
hah ! JR is a Cali boy now.
Illogical wrote:[/b
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.
As always, you're showing your remarkable ignorance, but that's what makes you a conservative.
The south only had one party for about 100 years and smart people, and by that I mean liberals, know that as non-deniable fact. The was no Republican party in the south because Lincoln freed the slaves. It is also a well documented fact that when Civil Rights legislation pushed by Johnson was enacted the conservatives started defecting to the Republican party. It's total hogwash that what Johnson did weakened civil rights, or that the Republican Party at any time after reconstruction was for them. The sweep of the conservatives over to the Republican Party went in earnest following the "Southern Strategy" (look it up) followed by Richard Nixon. Nixon's plan, which was mirrored by other Republicans such as Jesse Helms, was to lure poor ignorant whites to the Republican Party with pleas lacked with veiled bigotry.
So here are the facts on the table that you cannot refute. Conservatives went to the Democratic Party after the Civil War because they were against the freeing of the slaves done by a Republican. The Republican Party at the time of the Civil War would be considered liberal by today's standards. When the Democratic Party made a swing to the left in the 60's and 70's by supporting Civil Rights legislation conservatives left in droves to the Republican Party. SO this isn't a Democrat or Republican thing, it's a liberal vs conservative thing. Liberals have been on the right side of every issue since the country was formed, remember that conservatives (then Tories) fought for Britain and fled to Canada. They followed up by being for slavery, then for segregation, for denying women the vote. You cannot deny any of that.
Today's Republican Party has no claim to being the "Party of Lincoln" because the majority of its members are ignorant white bigots.
I know bringing up facts really pisses on a conservatives campfire since all of the arguments are largely devoid of them, but a little light reading may be in order:
Eisenhower may have signed the 1957 Civil Rights act, but he never supported it strongly:
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1957_civil_rights_act.htm
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are"
http://www.suite101.com/content/the-southern-strategy-and-richard-nixon-a269466#ixzz1JRSzJHol
How a person could claim to be a conservative when it's as closely linked to bigotry as child molestation is to Catholic priests is beyond me.
Ike wasn't perfect. He stood by as a General and let Nazi soldiers get treated beter than his own black US soldiers. He stood by as Prtesident and let blacks get lynched by Southern whites.
Read Michael Shaara's "Killer Angels" if you get a chance. It was the basis for the movie "Gettysburg."In that mostly grim book there is a somewhat amusing passage of a confederate soldier claiming he was fighting for "state's rats.""Rats, I'm fixin' to fight for rats." I think he was making a little bit of fun at them.Yes, it was about state's rights but slavery was a big underlying issue.
Minn wrote:
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.
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.
You can't prove any of this.
[quote]Marcus T Cicero wrote:
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.
[quote]Illogical wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
A larger percentage of Republicans voted for the CRA of 1964 than did Democrats.
Ike fan wrote:
Ike wasn't perfect. He stood by as a General and let Nazi soldiers get treated beter than his own black US soldiers. He stood by as Prtesident and let blacks get lynched by Southern whites.
He also sent troops into the south to enforce new civil rights laws.
Keith,
Nice use of bold fonts. But "Liberals have been on the right side of every issue since the country was formed"? I don't even think Obama would agree with that statement.
Na King
Ike never did clamp down on the KKK in police depts thus we have today the KKK dominated L.A.P.D., L.A.S.D., C.H.P., and BART police in California. The police in the US in general has an open license to beat to death and to shoot any black male or female without fear of prosecution.
God Bless America wrote:
What did your ancestors do to help end the evil of Slavery in the United States ?
Actually my ancestors fought for the Confederacy. Does that make me a bad person?
Your ancestry sucks. But you don't if you condemn those racist ffuucckkss in your blood line.
I think my ancestors may have used slaves for entertainment in gladiator contests against animals.
Also, they may have attacked innocent countries to expand the empire.
I do condemn this behavior.
Northerners are fine with minorities as long as they don't have to see them.
I feel the same can be said for Liberals in general. They talk a big game but rarely live up to the standards. Look at people doing Mission work and donating large sums of money to the poor. These people are overwhelmingly conservative. I can cite this if anyone doesn't believe me.
I am a registered Independent b/c I vote based on issues, not popularity. I voted for Obama in the last election.
Slavery was more profitable than ever in 1860.
Anyone who thinks the war was about anything but slavery is a person who lets their ideology drive their interaction with the facts. The South didn't hide this. I spent a year transcribing southern and northern newspapers from the 1850's (August Co, Virginia and Franklin Coounty, PA) and it was all about slavery. Read the secession convention documents. Read about "Bloody Kansas". They weren't shooting and bludgeoning each other over the tarriff or state's rights.
It was amazing to read upper south unionist newspapers (right up until the attack on Sumter and Lincon's call for troops) and how blatantly they accused the coastal slaveowners of dragging them into a "rich man's war, poor man's fight". Of course, the tone changed 180 degrees right after Lincoln's call for troops.
Visit the "Valley of the Shadow" archive and read some newspapers from the period.
Marcus T Cicero wrote:
I think my ancestors may have used slaves for entertainment in gladiator contests against animals.
Also, they may have attacked innocent countries to expand the empire.
I do condemn this behavior.
Your ancestors also divided all Gaul into 3 parts when they came, saw and conquered; raped Boudicca and rent Britain from the Brythonics; cast jews to the wind and leveled Jerusalem to pagan Aelia Capitolina; and Delenda'd Carthago and chased Hannibal and his elephants to Anatolia, where he was knifed like a common terrorist.
Do you condemn all of that barbaric behaviour?
luv2run wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_partyA larger percentage of Republicans voted for the CRA of 1964 than did Democrats.
True, but if you look at the numbers on the same link you'll see that the majority of the Democrats that voted against that were from the south, the same people that defected to the Republican Party. That means by default the Republican Party TODAY is primary populated with people that are against Civil Rights. You also have to admit that the northern Republicans were largely driven out of the party for being too liberal.
If freeing the slaves was put up for a vote in today's Republican Party you can be pretty sure it would fail. The Republicans would say it can't be done because of the cost to businesses and that businesses should be reimbursed for "stolen" property. Of course they'd claim you'd be putting hundreds of thousands of slaves out of work. No way they'd want them to vote as people because most of them wouldn't have a birth certificate necessary to get government id.
Actually they were, by all accounts, pretty brave. Just as many of them faced their deaths in the war as northerners. More, actually. They might supported an evil institution but they were far from cowards.
My ancestors fought for Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Ayers wrote:
I spent a year transcribing southern and northern newspapers from the 1850's (August Co, Virginia and Franklin Coounty, PA) and it was all about slavery.
I'm not about to get into the debate that forms the topic of this thread, but I would like to say to this poster - I'm from Augusta County, VA and this page you posted is amazing! I could read these old Staunton Spectator papers for days. I actually wrote for the current Staunton paper for a few years. Thanks for posting this!