(idabooby in a reflective pose)
Posted on 09/22/2010 7:55:54 AM PDT by Michael Zak
Yep. Every time.
If the Republican Party becomes infested with your ilk, you're gonna lose the South. Trust me on this.
You can count on it.
[punkrr]How would you ever notice who is in the party pokie?
Punkrr, don't you reside in one of them blue libtard States.
How many States vote conservative today that helped Saint Abraham then, two? Liberal then, liberal now.
I don't believe you, or anyone else, can speak for all Republicans. I respect your position on Lincoln, however, mine is very different.
And Thomas Jefferson wanted to free all slaves and ship them to Haiti. I suppose you're down on him as well?
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee to name just a few.
WTF does that have to do with anything dipshiite?
Looky here, your fellow Seattlites have discovered something interesting..
Land-Stealing Tyrant Lincoln Was Born Today
Once, Washington stretched all the way from the Pacific Ocean to the Continental Divide. From the Canadian border to the 46th Parallel. Lake Coeur D'Alene, Lolo Pass, it all belonged to us.
Until a gangly thief, born 198 years ago today, emancipated it away.
Imagine how magical it could be to get your car tabs in Missoula, or buy liquor at state-established markups in Kalispell, or pay 8.8% sales tax in Twin Falls. Sadly, because of the so-called hero Lincoln, you can't. In 1863, Lincoln stole what's now all of Idaho, part of Montana, and part of Wyoming away from our future state.
Of course, they're afraid to teach you the real truth in our state schools, some of which, shamefully, are even named for the greatest villain in Washington's history. Seattle is spared this indignity--our L****** High closed in the 70s, though the building still hosts other schools while their own structures are remodeled.
The nation may be celebrating Lincoln with a national holiday, but here at Seattlest, we'll just be weeping.
http://seattlest.com/2007/02/12/landstealing_tyrant_lincoln_was_born_today.php
BFD
Moron probably has a confederate flag in the back of his Yugo...
(idabooby in a reflective pose)
What does telling the truth about Lincoln have to do with looking down on Southerners? Maybe some Southerners ought to consider identifying more with with the rugged son of the frontier than with the pampered, under worked class of pretentious "aristocrats" who stupidly and selfishly led their part of the world to ruin.
Not at all I wish he would have.
The "solid south" voted solidly (80% to 90%) for all the Liberal Progressive Democrat candidates for President, including Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and even Adlai Stevenson!
The South was not so solid for more conservative Democrats like Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy.
In the 1960s the South -- having been married to Liberal Progressivism since the Civil War -- suddenly discovered Republican conservatism and began voting our way.
Of course we love you guys, just like our own family, and we welcome you all to our party.
But let's be frank -- as far as real conservatives are concerned you Johnny Rebs are all Johnny-come-latelies here.
;-)
The South remained Democrat until they discovered that they could switch to the Republicans and still keep their big government, big spending ways.
But let's be frank -- as far as real conservatives are concerned you Johnny Rebs are all Johnny-come-latelies here.
I'm sure the kind welcome is sincere, but statements like these are why some Southerners will never vote Republican. You see, it isn't YOUR party. All Southerners are not Johnnie-come-latelies. I often speak to individuals whose political opinions a strictly conservative, both socially and fiscally, but they refuse to vote for any Republican. When I inquire as to why they vote against Republicans their answer is a variation of, "Republicans, phooey! Nothing but a bunch of elitist snobs."
This isn't going to change with less than polite welcomes. I understand it is different when chatting with other conservatives on FR, but it doesn't help me to change other's perceptions of the Republican party.
I believe Southerners understand each other much better than those not of the South. If you don't think there would be a backlash if Steel's "Southern Strategy" is widely known, think again. Most people don't like being thought of as ignorant, nor do they appreciate being manipulated. There are those who aren't particularly interested in politics nor American history, but do vote regularly. When part of our history is highlighted and other parts are ignored, someone will make sure the ignored parts are brought to the forefront. Best just to be open and honest or, better yet, just stick to conservative principles and let the rest go.
"Southern Strategy".....baloney! How about a conservative strategy?!
What do you find curious about it?
If you don't vote Republican who do you vote for?
Where do you get the idea that I don't vote Republican?
WHEREAS, a sectional party of the North has disregarded the Constitution of the United States, violated the rights of the Southern States, and heaped wrongs and indignities upon their peopleThat's an interesting claim for the seceding touch-holes to make -- if as you say, the Arizona secession occurred a month before Lincoln took office. But that's not surprising in the least bit. Thanks again.
That’s true and I enjoy your level of scholarship.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge. It isn’t going to waste!
Teddy Roosevelt gave the Progressives the cover they needed to penetrate the political apparatus of the US. His “trust busting” made a mockery of American free market and set the place for heavier and deeper involvement of government in business.
Political entrepreneurs have ever been the bane of free peoples.
[You]: That's an interesting claim for the seceding touch-holes to make -- if as you say, the Arizona secession occurred a month before Lincoln took office. But that's not surprising in the least bit. Thanks again.
The complaint about the North disregarding the Constitution applies to the Republicans, the Free Soilers, the Whigs or those of any party that passed unconstitutional personal liberty laws that blocked the return of fugitive slaves from Northern states. Not all personal liberty laws were unconstitutional, but some clearly were and were intended to block Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution.
I've posted what Northern states started doing about those personal liberty laws once Southern states started seceding before. It clearly shows they knew their laws were unconstitutional. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2584706/posts?page=333#333.
You didn’t pick up on the “Whereas” clause that dealt with protection from the savages. The federal government was responsible under the Constitution to repel invasions (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 15). Arizona said (back then):
WHEREAS, the Government of the United States has heretofore failed to give us adequate protection against the savages within our midst and has denied us an administration of the laws, and that security for life, liberty, and property which is due from all governments to the people
Texas had something similar in their secession document:
The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.
That was a very serious issue in Texas, and I imagine in Arizona too. In Texas, Mexicans took over the town of Brownsville and killed a number of citizens. The people of Brownsville then had to hire the Mexican army to protect them. There were up to 600 Mexican bandits in control of the county Brownsville was in. The state sent in the Texas Rangers. The Federals sent some troops. The Rangers crossed into Mexico and defeated the bandits on their home turf.
The federal government paid for part of Texas’ expenses for doing what was a Federal job. Texans were outraged that rather than pay the rest of Texas legitimate expenses Congress funded a study of the Great Lakes.
Indians were a terrible problem in Texas. From the Richmond (VA) Enquirer of March 5, 1861:
The number of persons killed and wounded in Texas by Indians during the past three months is estimated at 470.
That number sounds high. I need confirmation from another source. But the Indians were a very serious matter.
Don’t get me started on the impact of the tariff on the South.
I'll be off the threads now for a number of days. Sorry to have to end the discussion from my end.
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.