Posted on 07/26/2006 3:22:50 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
How's that book of yours coming along?
talk about "HAS NO LIFE!"
rotflol AT anyone who is THAT much of a DUMB-bunny.
free dixie,sw
And I thought you didn't read my posts. You'll have to be more careful. And I kinda like the moniker "nameless, shunned one." It's a great supervillain name.
So, you been to IHOP lately?
Oh, and for the record, I'm not posting to you. I'm heckling you.
Lincoln admitted that his EP was illegal and designed to incite rebellion/murder in the Southern states. The Supreme Court had previously held that the federal government could not coerce any state official, the 11th Amendment prevented a state from being sued, so that left the dictator wannabe only one option - to invade under pretext of quashing a rebellion. Problem was, the states had seceded and no governor/legislature petitioned Lincoln/Congress for assistance. Lincoln attempted to get Governor Houston of Texas to request aid, but he was rebuffed.
the TYRANT was nothing if NOT deceptive & CROOKED!
free dixie,sw
BOTH would do/say ANYTHING to get ahead. ANYTHING!
free dixie,sw
I took issue with your using the term on an object, not an agenda. But some folks scream racist and racism at virtually anything.
Really? Were they [race riots in the North] inspired by politicans seeking elected office? Were those same politicans swept into office as a result?
I don't think our elections are quite as polarized as some of Philadelphia's have been (see below). How can a Northern city be this racially polarized? Some racial harmony heaven that place is.
In the 1987 mayoral election, for instance, Wilson Goode [black] received 98 percent of the black vote, while Rizzo [white] (in yet another comeback effort) won 97 percent of the white vote.
If you'll remember, Howard Dean wanted the votes of people who had Confederate flag stickers on their trucks. I wonder who the real race baiters are in this CNN news blurb?
Al Sharpton all but called Dean a racist. So did John Kerry, whose struggling campaign has sent out virtually hourly e-mails, reminding reporters that Howard Dean is a race baiter. [Source: Sharpton, Kerry, Dean]
Looks like you fall right in with Kerry on this one. Probably on other things too.
So opposition to forced busing = bigotry, what color is the sky in your world bubba? ... Listen, it [the Boston school busing riot] wasn't about black kids getting bused up north, it was about the white kids.
There is bigotry on both sides. The Boston riot did involve black kids being bused into white neighborhoods (and maybe vice versa, whites into black neighborhoods). Here's a report of black children being bused and pelted with stones up there in Bean Town in 1974.
Police in riot gear escort black school children bused into white neighborhoods in Boston, September 1974. During the early days of busing in the city, some black students were pelted with stones and racial abuse. [Source: Boston 1974]
Only the white citizens of Texas voted in 1954, the colored citizens had no say in the matter. Ain't that right?
No. Your errors are legion. Going for a record?
By 1946 75,000-100,000 blacks-at a maximum, 20 percent of those eligible-voted in the [Democrat] primary, compared to 33 percent of whites. [Source: Black voters in Texas]
GWB and his state attorney general removed those plaques in 1999 or 2000. What was the state Republican party's response to his actions?
The Party took a stand against his action, as I noted in that excerpt from the official party platform.
Sheet, that's mighty white of you... [deleting my name from a Republican delegate badge so mac wouldn't come to my house]
I probably didn't have anything to worry about. Judging by your posts, you aren't old enough to drive yet.
So you're a small tent Republican, eh?
An honest mistake, sorry. I found him on another thread this morning. He mentioned his book and another fact that gave him away. He has a different screen name now than he used to. I wonder if he got banned under the old name for hawking the book.
Actually, his knowledge of history was rather poor, and he got taken to the cleaners on these WBTS threads. That's not a good recommendation for a history book. No wonder he changed his screen name.
We'll have to disagree on Mr. Zak's book. I think we can admire the personal courage and dedication of Confederate soldiers, but the principles that should animate the Republican party are found in Lincoln, Sumner and Stevens, not in the Democrats and Confederates of that age.
Not just Confederate soldiers. We can admire the personal courage and dedication of the Union soldiers too. After the war many soldiers of both sides recognized the valor of their opponents and came together for various reunions. For the most part, I think many Union veterans would have objected to shabby treatment and disrespect of the Confederate Battle Flag.
Slavery aside, there were some good parts of the Southern and Democrat philosophy of that age. I think the South had the correct interpretation of the Constitution concerning secession, states rights, protectionist tariffs, and the federal rather than national form of government.
Secession was the ultimate peaceful check and balance protection against an out of control central government or a de Tocqueville cabal of states that might be taking advantage of your state. I don't think states would have agreed to the Constitution in 1787 unless they had that kind of escape clause -- witness statements from Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island at the time concerning the right of resumption of government by the people.
I don't know a lot about Sumner and Stevens. My impression is that although Stevens treated blacks humanely, he was a vindictive Radical Republican who wanted to punish the South after the war. To Lincoln's credit, Lincoln differed with the Radicals over how the South should be treated after the war. I don't think that the punishment philosophy that Stevens imbodied was good for the country. Reconstruction added greatly to the bitterness felt by the South after the war.
[mac] #590 ] Wallace and many others like him used the Confederate flag as a symbol of their racist agenda in the 1950s & 60s. David Duke is using it today as part of his 'white power' campaign for much the same reason. These historical facts are not in dispute are they?
For the second time, are you disputing the accuracy of this statement?
I wonder who the real race baiters are in this CNN news blurb?
That would be Tucker Carlson… with James Carville defending. You're on pretty weak ground when you have to resort to quoting old Crossfire transcripts to make a point, wouldn't you agree?
Looks like you fall right in with Kerry on this one. Probably on other things too.
Maybe you're just out of ammunition and have to resort to name calling? Or is it just easier to ignore the inconvenient truth if you can demean the messenger?
The Boston riot did involve black kids being bused into white neighborhoods (and maybe vice versa, whites into black neighborhoods).
I have no idea what Boston riot you're talking about. Nothing you've sourced discusses it. You quote a photo caption from an NPR story that said “some rocks were thrown at some black children”. The same story has a photo of a black and white kid shaking hands in the window of a school bus. Try again.
By 1946 75,000-100,000 blacks-at a maximum, 20 percent of those eligible-voted in the [Democrat] primary, compared to 33 percent of whites.
You cherry-picked that statistic. After a decade of trying to overturn the 'whites only' primary election system the Texas NAACP wins a Supreme court case on the matter. In the next election cycle (1946) blacks come out to vote for the first time in a democrat primary. Are you suggesting that blacks in Texas were never disenfranchised after that, or that the 1965 Voting Rights Act was unnecessary?
-btw I recommend reading the entire essay you sourced from the Handbook of Texas History. The first sentence starts out “Racial conflict is a basic feature of Texas history.” and it goes on. Here is one particularly interesting passage.
"Disfranchisement, however, had been under way since the end of Reconstruction. Intimidation, harassment of black leaders, violence (including the lynchingqv of 300 to 500 blacks late in the century), the growth of Jim Crow institutions, repeated efforts by conservative legislators to pass a poll-tax law from 1875 onward, and Democrats' fear of the third parties' biracial appeal culminated in the effective removal of blacks from the electorate. The last of forty-two black Reconstruction-era legislators, Robert L. Smithqv of Colorado County, attended his final sessions in 1897, offering an impassioned resolution on May 4 against lynching. Gerrymandering had cut the numbers of black legislators sharply. Violence had taken a toll on black voter turnout even before the constitution was amended in 1902 to impose the poll tax. But the tax, which fell hardest on those least able to pay, had an independent effect, as did restrictive registration laws mandated in 1903 and 1905, and county Democratic leaders' widespread adoption of the white primary. As nomination by the Democratic party was tantamount to election, the white primary denied most blacks the ballot in state contests. By 1906 African Americans were no longer a significant force in most elections."
Is this the heritage you're so proud of?
The Party took a stand against his action, as I noted in that excerpt from the official party platform.
That'll teach em [lol] I'll bet Jorge & Alberto are quaking in their boots about that. How many days did it take ya'll to draft that important sounding paragraph?
Judging by your posts, you aren't old enough to drive yet.
Judging from your posts you're just another 'lilly white' Republican who ignores 50 years of living history in his own back yard. Face it RB, you can't defend the use of the Confederate flag by racists like Duke and Wallace and their supporters so you attack the person(s) bringing it up.
I have yet to meet a so-called southern conservative on this forum who will admit to ever supporting Wallace. Why is that?
Do you dispute the accuracy of the CNN report about what Kerry and Sharpton were claiming? Do you support what Kerry's office was putting out?
I have no idea what Boston riot you're talking about. Nothing you've sourced discusses it. You quote a photo caption from an NPR story that said “some rocks were thrown at some black children”.
The picture caption talked about busing black students into white communities as well as rocks being thrown at the black students. The picture above the caption showed police in riot gear escorting black students in buses. But, but, but you had claimed that it was all about white students. Since you didn't get it the first time, here's an excerpt from another article on the subject saying similar things.
What was once a generally idle racial animus between blacks and whites swelled into seething bigotry. [Horrors, mac, there's that bigotry word again!]
When the buses pulled up to high schools in white neighborhoods, police had to escort black teenagers through a gauntlet of thrown rocks and bottles; the students heard shouts of "Die, niggers, die!" and saw signs that read "Bus Them Back to Africa!" [Source: especially to educate mac]
That any clearer? I remember the Boston riots, having earlier lived in both Boston and Cambridge while in college. Also from that article:
Somehow the birthplace of the American Revolution and the abolitionist movement has become perhaps the most segregated city in America.
You cherry-picked that statistic.
Some cherry pick. It disproved your argument. You said that only whites voted in Texas in 1954. My quote showed that blacks were voting in large numbers in 1946. Maybe I should have also pulled up the quote in that article about how Texas black precincts voted in 1932?
I don't deny that blacks were earlier denied the right to vote in the Texas Democrat primary or in earlier general elections. History is history.
Judging from your posts you're just another 'lilly white' Republican who ignores 50 years of living history in his own back yard.
Trying to goad me with "Bubba", "Sheets", and "lilly white"?
I donated food to efforts to help blacks get the vote in Alabama in the 1960s even though they would vote against my Party. What did you do to help them? I argued against segregation in the Deep South in the 1950s. Have you ever put yourself at risk for racial justice like that? Now who is 'lilly white'?
Face it RB, you can't defend the use of the Confederate flag by racists like Duke and Wallace and their supporters so you attack the person(s) bringing it up.
I've never defended their use of the CBF or any of their actions. I can't stop them from using it any more than you can stop the Klan and the Neo-Nazis from using the Stars and Stripes.
I have yet to meet a so-called southern conservative on this forum who will admit to ever supporting Wallace. Why is that?
I work with engineers and scientists in the South, most of them PhDs like myself. Back when Wallace was a minor trash-spouting wannabe national powerhouse, we took a poll among ourselves by secret paper ballot. None of us supported Wallace. None of us supported the Democrat. All of us supported the Republican.
I knew only one person who reportedly voted for Wallace (the wife of one of the engineers).
When?
I'm all for federalism. But I think there's a middle ground between all-powerful central government and the "magical omnipotence of states rights" that the Confederates believed in. My opinion is that Lincoln and the Republicans occupied that middle ground. The real centralizing began under Democrat Wilson and his protege FDR.
I don't think Stevens and the Radicals were that vicious towards the South. They didn't advocate a bloodbath, but they did want some structural change that might have prevented 100 years of Southern conflict and lagging behind. And I think to say that Stevens was vindictive against the South is to put a very narrow definition to "the South". I think Stevens' prescription was mostly harsh to the slaveowning elite. The Radical plan would have been best in the long run for the subsistence farmers who made up the bulk of the Southern white population.
And if the Davis regime had treated Union prisoners as prisoners instead of criminals, runaway slaves, and the like the prisoner exchanges might have continued.
Illegal - 2 Sep 1863. Unconstituional 4 Apr 1864. Could incite rebellion/murder/massacre - 13 Sep 1862.
Does it apply to women and children too? It fails to mention them. As an aside, Jefferson wrote in the original draft that King George had forced slavery upon the colonies. Franklin (IIRC) had that clause struck. Not every Southerner desired slavery, nor believed that blacks were inferior. But again, the same men that agreed to the DoI refused to grant citizenship/naturalization to blacks (and Native Americans).
Even if some sections of the country were backward as to their practice, that does not negate the ideal expressed in the Declaration.
Certainly you are aware that slavery was practiced in every state - including New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island & Providence Plantations, &c? That slave cemeteries have been uncovered in NYC and other Northern enclaves? That massive fortunes were built by yankees in the trade of human flesh? That the average yankee could purchase shares in such expeditions to gain financial reward?
Pro-slavery Southerners of the secession era knew that the Declaration was not in harmony with their agenda.
What about pro-slavery Yankees of the revolutionary era? What about the racist bigots in the North, including Lincoln, who advocated a constitutional amendment to renumerate people for their slaves, then to deport all blacks to Central America? Or Stevens, Sumner, radical republicans et al that wanted their states and territories free of blacks?
Slavery was on the way out in the Revolutionary age.
Georgia under Oglethorpe banned it in 1748. The royal government put it back in place. Opponents of slavery existed long before, and long after. Yet even today, slavery flourishes - especially in Muslim countries.
Black men voted to ratify the Constitution ...
Citations please.
... that Roger Taney thought only applied to white people.
Learn to read legal opinions. Taney wrote that the Constitution/framers/Congress never extended citizenship to blacks.
Then there's the matter of the Northwest Ordinance. It shows that the Founders' generation believed that Congress could exclude slavery in the territories.
The NO predated the Constitution, and numerous territories/states bypassed the slavery restriction by calling it 'indentured servitude', which lasted up to 1865.
Had the pro-slavery South accepted that foundation principle, the nation would have remained united and at peace.
Had the pro-slavery North accepted that foundation principle, then they would not have demanded and extension of the slave trade, nor demanded that slaves were 3/5ths of a person.
But that would have meant a slow death to slavery which was the foundation of their society.
It was the foundation of Northern society as well - the entire Triangle trade was based on slavery - Northern shipping was based on slavery, Northern manufactures relied on Southern agricultural products produced with slave labor. The states - Northern and Southern - ratified a Constitution that recognized and protected slavery. No one wanted slaves for the purpose of owning a person, as it was, slaves were very expensive (about $80K in todays dollars), the slaves were wanted to reduce costs. Slavery was an ECONOMIC issue, not a moral issue. Southern secession meant that Northern manufactures would be deprived of their cheap raw materials as well as the captive market for their products.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.