America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 2 years ago by ZRX1200. 99 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Confederate battle flag.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
delta1 Offline
#51 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 4:04 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,814
RayR wrote:
Smoothy, I disagree on one thing, many Americans don't learn from the mistakes of the past, they just keep repeating them.
Wisdom seems an elusive thing.



OK...that is correct...but I think we part ways where we see who is afflicted by this elusive thing...

case in point: current push nationwide by GOP to suppress the vote is reminiscent of the pre-and Civil Rights Era tactics...
Smooth light Offline
#52 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 4:12 PM EST
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Do as I say, not what I do. Let's say we did but didn't.

Progressivism, tolerance of intolerance. (Alice in wonderland, off with their heads)
RayR Offline
#53 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 4:15 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
delta1 wrote:
trickle down economics is like progressivism?

ummmm.........no


Biden says if you have the FED print lots of counterfeit dough It'll trickle down and make everyone rich and prosperous.
That's trickle-down progressive economics! Yes?
RayR Offline
#54 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 4:41 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
delta1 wrote:
OK...that is correct...but I think we part ways where we see who is afflicted by this elusive thing...

case in point: current push nationwide by GOP to suppress the vote is reminiscent of the pre-and Civil Rights Era tactics...


You mean that Jim Crow 2.0 stuff that I saw Chucky Schumer and Stacey Abrams yaking about on those YouTube ads I saw? HAHAHAHA!...what a bunch of anti-American evil clowns. đź‘ş [SKIP AD] They must have gone to Venezuela for tips on how to cheat at voting.

That H.L Mencken wrote of the founding fathers, "They realized the essential weakness of democracy, and predicted some of its worst excesses – now unhappy and inescapable realities. They warned that giving the vote to incompetent, despairing and envious people would breed demagogues to rouse and rally them, and that the whole democratic process would thus be converted into organized pillage and plunder."

Come'on man is that true or what?! Who needs more blockheads voting for demagogues? I mean look at the moron administration we got now.
HockeyDad Offline
#55 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 5:13 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
If the choice is to be pillaged and plundered or pillage and plunder, go with pillage and plunder every time.
teedubbya Offline
#56 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 5:17 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
did the southern strategy ever really stop?
Speyside Offline
#57 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 5:39 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
No.
frankj1 Offline
#58 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 6:05 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,228
rayr wrote:
"Besides Father Abraham wanted to deport all those enslaved black folk."


could be, but the best part is the idea was from T. Jefferson many decades prior.
Based on his fear of getting deservedly mutilated by his human property if he freed them...so he talked about the right thing but never lived it.

Of the estimated 600 or so humans he owned in his life, he did free something like 8 or nine of them, maybe half stipulated in his will after his death...too close for comfort?
DrMaddVibe Offline
#59 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 8:05 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
HockeyDad wrote:
If the choice is to be pillaged and plundered or pillage and plunder, go with pillage and plunder every time.



Gotta have a side of "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women!"...with pickles!
RayR Offline
#60 Posted: Tue, Jun 15 2021, 10:28 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
frankj1 wrote:
rayr wrote:
"Besides Father Abraham wanted to deport all those enslaved black folk."


could be, but the best part is the idea was from T. Jefferson many decades prior.
Based on his fear of getting deservedly mutilated by his human property if he freed them...so he talked about the right thing but never lived it.

Of the estimated 600 or so humans he owned in his life, he did free something like 8 or nine of them, maybe half stipulated in his will after his death...too close for comfort?


This is true Frank, he was in discussions with others like Madison on the possibilities of the emancipated slaves colonized someplace whether in N. America or elsewhere. They bounced around ideas, looking for solutions.

Jefferson was interested in ending the institution of slavery since his younger days, when he was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses he introduced a bill to do just that, but you know how governments are, it was too radical for its time so nobody acted on it.

In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he denounced King George and slavery, again too radical for others to swallow so it never made it to the final document:

Quote:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."


Jefferson also drafted the Ordinance of 1784 which would have restricted slavery in all territories in the west both north and south. Again, it failed to pass as written and by only one vote in Congress because of that slavery clause.

You are being hyperbolic, maybe even crazy saying "Based on his fear of getting deservedly mutilated by his human property if he freed them...so he talked about the right thing but never lived it."
Get out of the cartoon land Frank, It just wasn't that easy freeing a slave in his time, there were legal roadblocks and great expense involved to discourage it. There was opposition to it based on where would they go if freed? What about families? People were concerned with the competition with white labor. Would some become criminals? Some people didn't want them around at all. It was a mess.
frankj1 Offline
#61 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 8:34 AM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,228
RayR wrote:
This is true Frank, he was in discussions with others like Madison on the possibilities of the emancipated slaves colonized someplace whether in N. America or elsewhere. They bounced around ideas, looking for solutions.

Jefferson was interested in ending the institution of slavery since his younger days, when he was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses he introduced a bill to do just that, but you know how governments are, it was too radical for its time so nobody acted on it.

In the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, he denounced King George and slavery, again too radical for others to swallow so it never made it to the final document:



Jefferson also drafted the Ordinance of 1784 which would have restricted slavery in all territories in the west both north and south. Again, it failed to pass as written and by only one vote in Congress because of that slavery clause.

You are being hyperbolic, maybe even crazy saying "Based on his fear of getting deservedly mutilated by his human property if he freed them...so he talked about the right thing but never lived it."
Get out of the cartoon land Frank, It just wasn't that easy freeing a slave in his time, there were legal roadblocks and great expense involved to discourage it. There was opposition to it based on where would they go if freed? What about families? People were concerned with the competition with white labor. Would some become criminals? Some people didn't want them around at all. It was a mess.

with your history but not your last paragraph conclusion.
Hey, that's life in CBid forums for ya.
RayR Offline
#62 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 10:47 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
frankj1 wrote:
with your history but not your last paragraph conclusion.
Hey, that's life in CBid forums for ya.


Oh! So you don't agree that you are crazy? Well...that's what all crazy people say.

You can ignore the social and legal impediments to emancipation if you wish but that doesn't change the facts.
The Fugitive Slave Act itself was a hindrance to emancipation and the end of slavery by socializing the cost of capturing and returning runaway slaves. Lincoln supported the enforcement of The Fugitive Slave Act.

One thing many people have trouble wrapping their heads around is that Lincoln and the Republican Party were not abolitionists, even though their 7th-grade history book told them they were which was reinforced by tales told by leftist and neocon historians in popular history books and on TV.
Lincoln and the Republican Party were largely "Free Soilers", they were against extending slavery into the territories but not because they were concerned with the plight of the back man. When Lincoln himself stated in 1854, that "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them.", he was pandering to white voters.
Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward was more blunt: "The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the Negro"
Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, the New York Republican newspaper of the day wrote “That all unoccupied territory of the United States and such as they may hereafter acquire shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race, a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery.”

It especially drives many conservative republicans nuts when you show them that their sainted first president and the origins of the party had a very tarnished halo. Heresy!, Blasphemy!!LOL





frankj1 Offline
#63 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 2:27 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,228
because he fits well into what you want, Jefferson gets a pass because it was just so darn hard to free a human being once purchased. I'm close to tears over here.

I don't have endless links to writers sympathetic to your repurposed history but he could have stopped tormenting his soul after purchasing...I don't know...300 human beings, 450 maybe. How he must have tossed and turned when he hit number 600. Oh, the unbearable anguish. Or maybe followed his heart and denounced the practice through deed rather than op/ed columns.

Lincoln also was far from flawless but, like it or not, eventually oversaw the single major step in their freedom.

Roosevelt eventually saw the error of his ways and ended up doing the right thing for the European Jews (and some others).

Throughout history there are imperfect/ordinary people who somehow see the light, reverse course, and do extraordinary things. Better late than never.

Sadly, despite much achievement and notoriety, even on his deathbed Jefferson could only summon enough character to free less than a dozen human beings...
I guess his accountants told him the inheritance taxes would be less for his white kids than selling the slaves for profit before he died.
HockeyDad Offline
#64 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 2:50 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
He may have had them in a blind trust.
RayR Offline
#65 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 2:54 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
Frank, you're a slave to codswallop. I'm done skooling you on Jefferson and the anti-Jeffersonian dicktator Lincoln. You need emancipation.

So let commence with what your hero, the anti-Jeffersonian FDR did to your people.
I know...More Painful Links

Historian: New evidence shows FDR’s bigotry derailed many Holocaust rescue plans

Quote:
Not only was US president Franklin Roosevelt perfunctory about rescuing Jews from the Nazis, but he obstructed rescue opportunities that would have cost him little or nothing, according to Holocaust historian Rafael Medoff.

FDR’s role in preventing the rescue of European Jewry is detailed in a new book called, “The Jews Should Keep Quiet: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, and the Holocaust.”

Published in September through The Jewish Publication Society, Medoff’s book includes new archival materials about the relationship between Roosevelt and Rabbi Stephen Wise, who the author sees as a sycophantic Jewish leader used by Roosevelt to “keep the Jews quiet.”

Wrote Medoff, “Franklin Roosevelt took advantage of Wise’s adoration of his policies and leadership to manipulate Wise through flattery and intermittent access to the White House.” In return for visits to the White House and Roosevelt calling him by his first name, Wise undermined Jewish activists who demanded the administration let more Jewish refugees into the US.

According to Medoff, Roosevelt’s policies toward European Jews were motivated by sentiments similar to those that spurred him to intern 120,000 Japanese Americans in detention camps as potential spies.

More...

https://www.timesofisrael.com/historian-new-evidence-shows-fdrs-bigotry-derailed-many-holocaust-rescue-plans/
frankj1 Offline
#66 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 4:23 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,228
RayR wrote:
Frank, you're a slave to codswallop. I'm done skooling you on Jefferson and the anti-Jeffersonian dicktator Lincoln. You need emancipation.

So let commence with what your hero, the anti-Jeffersonian FDR did to your people.
I know...More Painful Links

Historian: New evidence shows FDR’s bigotry derailed many Holocaust rescue plans



Don't be a tease, now. Many are praying you really are done with your droning monologue...HA!

I may read later, but I assure you I already know more than you could google in a year (or have Lew whisper in your ear), and lots of it from those most affected by his inaction. Not from compilers of history but from those who lived it and witnessed it, from inside and from outside.

I know you're bright, but as a self professed "mongrel" it may be just out of your grasp to understand the real impact when it's in your family's bloodline...through no fault of your own. Maybe it's an advantage?

You know what else RayR? You play the hero card way too much trying to lock in the debate position of the opposition. But because Roosevelt was in the thread before my comments, I used him as an example of someone in a position to change and help the right cause, and Jefferson falls well short of that despite his achievements.

Neither are heroes as humans to me, not any more than Charles Barkley who at least knew he wasn't a role model, so I won't defend a position you are assigning and to which I do not subscribe.

I know you'll know if I have the right guy, but I seem to remember reading quotes attributed to Coolidge about being better at the job by acknowledging his own average status as a man.

My tag on to that is if you think you are above average, you don't understand why you should have freed all of your slaves at least upon your death. Feels like Jefferson to me.
frankj1 Offline
#67 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 4:29 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,228
edit:

it was Hitler being mentioned earlier that led me to use Roosevelt's late change in stance.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#68 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 4:34 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 14,675
Sweet flipping baby Jesus! Didja ever consider just one long running "I'm smarter than everyone" post for the sake of efficiency? Then I don't have to fear carpal tunnel scrolling past your repetitive rambling

Not directed towards you, frank. A) I would've said "smahtah," and B) I rather enjoy your rambling
frankj1 Offline
#69 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 4:58 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,228
Sunoverbeach wrote:
Sweet flipping baby Jesus! Didja ever consider just one long running "I'm smarter than everyone" post for the sake of efficiency? Then I don't have to fear carpal tunnel scrolling past your repetitive rambling

Not directed towards you, frank. A) I would've said "smahtah," and B) I rather enjoy your rambling

HA!

I've been off-script for years here. But they're my words.
delta1 Offline
#70 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 8:04 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,814
wow...talk about rewriting and revising history to align with one's alternate view of the world...


alternate facts aren't facts...distorted truths are not true
teedubbya Offline
#71 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 8:56 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
God bless WTS who’s heroic actions saved many lives.
borndead1 Offline
#72 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 10:20 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
RayR wrote:
Unless you are like borndead, who has swallowed the Lincolnian myth hook, line, and sinker, so he now can't handle the truth that Alexander H. Stephens views on race were the same as Abe Lincoln.


When did I say 1 single word praising Lincoln? You are assigning views to me that I don't hold. Very liberal of you.

As for your other statements and whataboutisms, I will give you this link again. Read it. It is the Confederate states spelling out, in detail, why they chose to secede. You'll notice some similarities.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
tonygraz Offline
#73 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 10:24 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,288
You are wearing out your fingers RayRay was born brain dead and has the lowest comprehension rate in the nation.

I heard DG has been tutoring him - so he's not getting any better.
HockeyDad Offline
#74 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 10:45 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
Guys…Guys…

None of this matters. We have Mexican and Latin American illegal immigrants now.

Relax.
teedubbya Offline
#75 Posted: Wed, Jun 16 2021, 10:52 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Yea the general Lee should prolly change color schemes. And the horn should play low rider
RayR Offline
#76 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2021, 10:20 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
borndead1 wrote:
When did I say 1 single word praising Lincoln? You are assigning views to me that I don't hold. Very liberal of you.

As for your other statements and whataboutisms, I will give you this link again. Read it. It is the Confederate states spelling out, in detail, why they chose to secede. You'll notice some similarities.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states


In order to understand the secession documents, you need to have an understanding of the power struggles, economics and all the gripes that were going on before Lincoln was elected. Lincoln's election did nothing but exacerbate all those problems as he represented what the Southern states viewed as what the coming Republican party policies would be. He wasn't "anti-slavery", as a strict abolitionist would be (real abolitionists did even trust him), he was against the spread of slavery into the new territories only. That was clear to everyone at the time from all he had been saying for many years although there were some fantastical myths about him being spread around in newspapers, fake abolitionist speeches he never made. Yes, fake news.

You can't read secession documents from your modern lens of presentism focused only on what you believe slavery or anti-slavery means.
.
The Georgia document is most telling:
"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution."

The part I highlighted sounds a lot like modern-day criticisms of government policies by real conservatives and libertarians, doesn't it?. "By anti-slavery it is made the power in the state." That was exactly the power struggle, who would have the upper hand in Washington. The Lincoln Republicans were fixing to rig things so they could have monopoly power by creating that great white Eden in the territories that would be loyal to their interests.
RayR Offline
#77 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2021, 10:29 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
HockeyDad wrote:
Guys…Guys…

None of this matters. We have Mexican and Latin American illegal immigrants now.

Relax.


The Democratic Party illegal immigrant trade is the new slave market, they buy them and teach them to be loyal to their mastas.
Smooth light Offline
#78 Posted: Thu, Jun 17 2021, 11:24 AM EST
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
I used to own a Rambler(station wagon) and you'll just reminded of the good times with it. Took me anywhere, with no place to go. But a good time had by all.
borndead1 Offline
#79 Posted: Tue, Jun 22 2021, 9:19 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
RayR wrote:
In order to understand the secession documents, you need to have an understanding of the power struggles, economics and all the gripes that were going on before Lincoln was elected. Lincoln's election did nothing but exacerbate all those problems as he represented what the Southern states viewed as what the coming Republican party policies would be. He wasn't "anti-slavery", as a strict abolitionist would be (real abolitionists did even trust him), he was against the spread of slavery into the new territories only. That was clear to everyone at the time from all he had been saying for many years although there were some fantastical myths about him being spread around in newspapers, fake abolitionist speeches he never made. Yes, fake news.

You can't read secession documents from your modern lens of presentism focused only on what you believe slavery or anti-slavery means.
.
The Georgia document is most telling:
"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution."

The part I highlighted sounds a lot like modern-day criticisms of government policies by real conservatives and libertarians, doesn't it?. "By anti-slavery it is made the power in the state." That was exactly the power struggle, who would have the upper hand in Washington. The Lincoln Republicans were fixing to rig things so they could have monopoly power by creating that great white Eden in the territories that would be loyal to their interests.




Nonsense. All that 'states rights' rhetoric basically boils down to the Confederate states' determination to continue the enslavement of Africans. And you would see that if you wanted to. But you don't.
borndead1 Offline
#80 Posted: Tue, Jun 22 2021, 9:23 PM EST
Joined: 11-07-2006
Posts: 5,216
Funny how you quote Georgia but not Mississippi.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."
RayR Offline
#81 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 1:22 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
borndead1 wrote:
Nonsense. All that 'states rights' rhetoric basically boils down to the Confederate states' determination to continue the enslavement of Africans. And you would see that if you wanted to. But you don't.


You ignore the fact that there was slavery in the Union, 8 slave states in fact still in the Union after the first 7 states seceded. and nobody in those states seceded because they felt threatened that Lincoln was going to free the slaves. He assured them that he couldn't because he had no constitutional authority to do so.
Even the upper Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas were opposed to secession and only joined the Confederacy after President Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to march through their states to invade the seven Gulf states, something that they rightfully regarded as an unconscionable treasonous act under the Constitution.
You link to 5 declarations of causes statements at the American Battlefield Trust where only 4 of the first seven seceding states issued formal statements citing slavery as a prime reason for secession.
You can use dumbed-down history to claim that everything was about slavery and only slavery, that Righteous Cause Myth or you can do the hard work and learn something about the economics and political maneuvering of the sectional interests.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-economy-stupid/
DrMaddVibe Offline
#82 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 6:22 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
borndead1 wrote:
Nonsense. All that 'states rights' rhetoric basically boils down to the Confederate states' determination to continue the enslavement of Africans. And you would see that if you wanted to. But you don't.



We've had countless conversations here and opened many eyes to the racist pole in the Confederacy spine. The same spine that birthed the KKK. The very same political party spine that approved of sedition and seperation from the United States of America. The DNC. It is without mistake that I use the quote "The DNC is a terrorist organization" with the veracity it deserves. They earned it!

Let's not dance around their hatred any more. Let's put an arrow into the heart of Darkness shall we?

Delivered by the Vice-President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens!

https://www.csaconstitution.com/p/alexander-h.html

We're not talking about heritage, history or legacy with this.

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition. [Applause.] This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It is so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North who still cling to these errors with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind; from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is, forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics: their conclusions are right if their premises are. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights, with the white man.... I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the Northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery; that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle-a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of man. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds we should succeed, and that he and his associates in their crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as well as in physics and mechanics, I admitted, but told him it was he and those acting with him who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

What a fine leader the Democrats elected eh?

Even after the Civil War too!

"In 1866, Stephens was elected to the United States Senate by the first legislature convened under the new Georgia State Constitution, but was not allowed to take his seat because of restrictions on former Confederates. He published a U.S. history in 1868–1870, laying out the Lost Cause of the Confederacy in his view: that secession was legal, and the attacks from the North aggression. The thrust of his legal argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the 1869 case Texas vs. White, ruling secession to be unconstitutional.

In 1873, Stephens was elected to the United States House of Representatives as a Democrat from the 8th District to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Ambrose R. Wright. He was re-elected to the 8th District as an Independent Democrat in 1874, 1876, and 1878, and as a Democrat again in 1880.[28] He described himself, on the title page of the 1876 edition of his Compendium, as "Professor Elect of History and Political Science at the University of Georgia". He served in the 43rd through 47th Congresses, from December 1, 1873, until his resignation on November 4, 1882. On that date, he was elected and took office as governor of Georgia.[29] His tenure as governor proved brief; Stephens died on March 4, 1883, four months after taking office.[30]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens#Later_life

Anyone STILL confused on this matter?
tonygraz Offline
#83 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 7:56 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,288
Just you and those who find any sense of reality in what you say.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#84 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 8:28 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
tonygraz wrote:
Just you and those who find any sense of reality in what you say.


Reality?

Oh sage DNC committed believer...PLEASE tell me where I was wrong with the above post.
RayR Offline
#85 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 9:22 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
What does the DNC have to do with the Confederacy or any of this? The DNC didn't exist then and today they are nothing more than a proponent of Marxism.

Alexander Stephens said nothing different from what Lincoln said. They were white supremacists of different stripes.
Cherry-picking quotes from one side doesn't prove the other side was any more morally superior or inferior.
Lincoln differed only from Stephens in that had the lawyer's ability to speak out of both sides of his mouth depending on the audience.

A private letter sent from Abraham Lincoln to Alexander Stephens-Vice President of the Confederacy. on Dec. 22, 1860.

Quote:
For your own eye only

Hon. A. H. Stephens-

My dear Sir

Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.

The South would be in no more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.

Yours very truly

A. LINCOLN


So there you have it, the private Lincoln.

On one side, a portion of the white supremacist aristocratic slave owner class represented by Stephens which incidentally was present both in the South, and the North wanted to preserve the institution and not opposed to it being extended.

On the other side, a portion of the white supremacist Northern corporate class represented here by "Free Soiler" Lincoln only thought slavery should be restricted. The racist pole in the Union spine. Slavery was only wrong to them in that black folks would exist among them, something that many Republicans clearly said often publically and something they sincerely wanted to suppress, especially in the new territories, dreams of whitety NIMBY-land!
Northern Republicans did all they could to suppress free blacks up north too, Even in the land of Lincoln Illinois they made it illegal for free blacks to move there, and those that did live there were denied equal civil rights, including the right to vote. Jim Crow was born in the North.

Real abolitionists on the other hand disliked both sides.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/abraham-lincoln-abolitionists

Actually, real abolitionists were in favor of the secession of slave states before the war.
https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/abolitionists-right-secession
DrMaddVibe Offline
#86 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 10:23 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
RayR wrote:
What does the DNC have to do with the Confederacy or any of this? The DNC didn't exist then and today they are nothing more than a proponent of Marxism.


The Democrat party has been around since the 1820's. That just a bit before the Civil War.
RayR Offline
#87 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 11:15 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
DrMaddVibe wrote:
The Democrat party has been around since the 1820's. That just a bit before the Civil War.


Just because the name is the same does not equate to them being the same party throughout time at all.
The Jeffersonian Democratc Party was never anything like the horrid Party of Marx it had transformed into during the Progressive Era after the last Jeffersonian Democrat President Grover Cleveland.
I know the neocons play that game to fool conservative types into believing that the Democrats have always been the same and that they the neoconservatives are the true Republican opposition to the left, but you don't have to play along. The neocons are liars and thieves and in no way conservative or remotely libertarian, they and the leftists are two sides of the same coin.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#88 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 12:24 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,513
RayR wrote:
Just because the name is the same does not equate to them being the same party throughout time at all.
The Jeffersonian Democratc Party was never anything like the horrid Party of Marx it had transformed into during the Progressive Era after the last Jeffersonian Democrat President Grover Cleveland.
I know the neocons play that game to fool conservative types into believing that the Democrats have always been the same and that they the neoconservatives are the true Republican opposition to the left, but you don't have to play along. The neocons are liars and thieves and in no way conservative or remotely libertarian, they and the leftists are two sides of the same coin.


Yeah it really does Ray.

A tiger doesn't change it's stripes. Follow the ball..A party steeped in the South...Ready to break up a nation over slavery...gets it's proverbial ass kicked for the world to see. A terrorist group is birthed from the ashes of defeat to hang black Americans and to make them tow their line even though they lost it all...very same party lets Hitler round up Jews despite intelligence stating they were committing genocide and let it go on...a party that let Pearl Harbor get destroyed despite advanced cables stating Japan was going to attack and used it to round up and arrest Asians...a party that wouldn't allow black children to go to school despite laws stating that they had every right to do so...a party that filibustered the Civil Rights Act because they still didn't want blacks to have full inclusion in society despite every legal reason to not deny them...a political party that enacted crime bills so tight that it practically ripped apart every black family in America today...a party that was more interested in providing cover for a degenerate they allowed sexual abuse, plotted bombings and 2 mass genocides so Willie could get his d!ck sucked!...that that party is the DNC. Don't give me your thin sliced watered down versions or examples from the crypts.

I'm done reasoning with them because I clearly see them for what they are. You want to microblade the hairs...go at it. Aim big...hit big...that's the way the drill sergeants trained me. Look at not only what the party has done the last 5 years but look what they've done just recently. The ones that are still carrying the water...look at them...you know who and what they are. They think they've done something really great with a new holiday...can't wait to hear the themed songs for that!
RayR Offline
#89 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 1:07 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
WOW DMV! You've really drunk the kool-aid deep, even with some progressive bits floating about.Sad

Can you also do the same for the Republican Party, they were the original big-government party that dismantled the original constitutional federal republic, repudiated the principles of the American Revolution which paved the way for the progressives on both the right and the left to expand unconstitutional federal powers even further still to this day so that now so-called Republican conservatives can bit*ch about all the socialism, lying, cheating, corruption, and stuff.
I'm done reasoning with both sides of the chit show because I clearly see them for what they are and what they've done to screw up America.
bgz Offline
#90 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 2:37 PM EST
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Good, good!!!

Feel your anger, let your hatred guide you!

- Palpatine

Or he said something like that anyway.
HockeyDad Offline
#91 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 2:53 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
Close enough for government work.
RayR Offline
#92 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 3:20 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
bgz wrote:
Good, good!!!

Feel your anger, let your hatred guide you!

- Palpatine

Or he said something like that anyway.


Dem the facts son even if you don't grasp them or rely instead on partisan myths.
Welcoming all haters to prove I'm wrong.Sleep
MACS Offline
#93 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 3:52 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,833
delta1 wrote:
OK...that is correct...but I think we part ways where we see who is afflicted by this elusive thing...

case in point: current push nationwide by GOP to suppress the vote is reminiscent of the pre-and Civil Rights Era tactics...


Can you give an actual example on how the "GOP" is trying to suppress any voting? Tangible evidence. Not just... they want to require ID (which everyone has or can easily get).
HockeyDad Offline
#94 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 4:09 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
MACS wrote:
they want to require ID (which everyone has or can easily get).


Democrats do not believe blacks are smart enough or capable enough to get a government ID or drivers license.
RayR Offline
#95 Posted: Wed, Jun 23 2021, 5:12 PM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
Don't ya get it boys! Proving their identity is equivalent to a Jim Crow poll tax. Them poh Dem voters aren't even literate enough to sign their own names other than scratching a big fat X. They need to be instructed which righteous name on the ballot to vote for. That's duhmacacy!
RayR Offline
#96 Posted: Fri, Jun 25 2021, 10:06 AM EST
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,927
All you morons who cheered the mobs on with their defacing and removal of Confederate monuments and symbols were warned what would happen, the object of the Marxist Cultural Revolution was to erase history itself so they could rewrite it to push their heinous agenda. They weren't going to stop, but you didn't listen to the warnings.Frying pan What's next...book burning?

Communist New York Dicktator Bill de Blasio has bowed to the chanting of his unwashed Marxist mob and the revolution continues as:

Now Teddy Roosevelt Gets Canceled
A statue of America’s 26th President will come down in New York City.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/teddy-roosevelt-gets-canceled-11592867171

I'm no fan of Teddy Roosevelt by any stretch of the imagination because he clearly sucked as POTUS and was mentally deranged to boot. But there was once a time when he was a progressive icon on both the left and the right, but now the mob cometh for him, and that ridiculous statue in front of the Museum of Natural History in New York City has been deemed...wait for it—RACIST!
ZRX1200 Online
#97 Posted: Fri, Jun 25 2021, 5:09 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
Well they get to decide who’s black by who they vote for….
HockeyDad Offline
#98 Posted: Fri, Jun 25 2021, 5:33 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,164
RayR wrote:
All you morons who cheered the mobs on with their defacing and removal of Confederate monuments and symbols were warned what would happen, the object of the Marxist Cultural Revolution was to erase history itself so they could rewrite it to push their heinous agenda. They weren't going to stop, but you didn't listen to the warnings.Frying pan What's next...book burning?

Communist New York Dicktator Bill de Blasio has bowed to the chanting of his unwashed Marxist mob and the revolution continues as:

Now Teddy Roosevelt Gets Canceled
A statue of America’s 26th President will come down in New York City.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/teddy-roosevelt-gets-canceled-11592867171

I'm no fan of Teddy Roosevelt by any stretch of the imagination because he clearly sucked as POTUS and was mentally deranged to boot. But there was once a time when he was a progressive icon on both the left and the right, but now the mob cometh for him, and that ridiculous statue in front of the Museum of Natural History in New York City has been deemed...wait for it—RACIST!


This sucks for Robin Williams.
ZRX1200 Online
#99 Posted: Fri, Jun 25 2021, 5:55 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,628
I’ll take “What’s short, hairy, and we’ll hung” for $800 Alex…..
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Back to Top