I forget are you the one on the left or the right?
Posted on 07/25/2012 9:50:49 AM PDT by BO Stinkss
So that means expansion of slavery would have been "non-racist?"
Dude, you are really stretching.
Everybody was a "Racist" then. But a lot of people then, and even before then rightly thought that slavery was just wrong and completely incompatible with American values.
Your sainted ancestors apparently didn't share that view.
Who's house was it? It was an artificial island built over a 20 year+ period entirely --- 100% -- by Federal funds.
So where does GITMO stand in your vision? If the Castros fire on it, did we start the war?
Is that why they called them The Black Republicans?
Dude, you just keep stretching in you fantasies.
You should re-read your history.
In 1860, slavery, was the most profitable business in the nation. The value of slaves was higher than the entire New York Stock Market at the time. It was a highly capitalized business, albeit it always had cash flow problems which the New York bankers were always willing to help with.
The problem the South had was that slaves breed pretty fast (like twice the rate of whites). Without new markets for the excess hands that slaves provided, the market for slaves, and their value for them would collapse leaving the owners bankrupt.
An even worse problem in some Southern states and many districts was that slaves already outnumbered whites and the slave population kept growing. Visions of Haiti danced in their heads at night. That is why the John Brown thing, as lame as it was, scared the living ---- out of them.
I'd have been terrified of an uprising too.
[wideawake]: If that was the case, such an opinion was not publicly expressed by very many voices in the North. Your statement is more invented propaganda than historical fact.
Here are the words of one Abraham Lincoln to Stephen A. Douglas on the subject [Peoria speech, October 16, 1854; emphasis mine below]:
Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new Territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to. New free States are the places for poor people to go to, and better their condition. For this use the nation needs these Territories.
BS. I'm an older Freeper, and I can remember those old southern Democrats like Russel, Falbus, Fullbright, Gore Sr. and the Byrds (the one form Virginia and the other blow-hard from West Virginia) and all the others being staunch segregationists fighting against every civil rights bill even against anti-lynching bills.
At the same time they voted for every big government spending and entitlement program that came down the pike from FDR's New Deal to LBJ's Great Society scam. And they all served in congress till they died.
I never saw one of them voting to restrict spending or to restrict Federal power unless it came to segregation.
Those old bastards were not conservatives in any sense of the word. Fiscal sanity? Individual rights? The Constitution? Hell they didn't give a crap about any of that.
They wanted the cash. They were all money-gribbing phonies but they were also all Democrats so I'm being redundant.
These lands were going to be farmed, and America had two kinds of farmers at that time: free white farmers and black slaves.
There was, at that time, no notion in America of a large class of freedmen.
Lincoln was not expressing a desire that only ethnically pure individuals live in the territories, but that the institution of slavery not be imported into them.
Remember Lincoln's background and situation - Southern Illinois and Indiana were settled in large part by Southern free whites who could not compete with wealthy planters in acquiring farmland - so they moved to the closest states where those planters could not import the slavery system to their advantage.
Lincoln saw the future of America as the western movement of these enterprising individuals to build free communities of family farms in newly-admitted free states - as opposed to states like Mississippi where a few hundred large planters owned half the population and more than half of the land, leaving free farmers to barely eke out a living on the scraps of land the planters did not want.
The only states that FDR lost by any margin were in New England.
FDR's radical leftist agenda would not have been possible without the nearly unanimous support of the Southern delegations to the House and Senate who voted as a bloc for the New Deal.
The most popular Southern politician of that time was Huey Long, who out-FDRed FDR in his radicalism.
If you can’t look past the party label to see the conservative, I can’t help you.
I however am starting to get the impression that the problem you have is not the label but the Conservative patriot behind it. If that be the case then we find ourselves on the opposite side of a growing conflict.
There is no freedom where you choose to reside, you can only hope not to live long enough to discover that the friends you have unconditional bounded yourself under will abuse that unconditional bound to the point of you being a practical slave.
Well when your country has been conquered and enslaved to a lawless central, your hate for the folks that brought you there tends to overwrite your better judgement in regard to your so called “Friends”.
It took a 100 years and a Conservative revolution in the mass media age to overcome that hate enough to start seeing our real enemy again. But that don’t change the evil that was done to the south (whole U.S. by the same principled) by Lincoln 150 years ago. It just to acknowledged that our so called “Friends” in the modern democratic party are really the modern day version of the big government leftist that waged war upon our rights 150 years ago.
That understanding and ability to recognize the change in label constituted a conservative revolution in the south, but it did not change the nature of the evil we still face largely because of Lincoln’s success 150 years ago.
Government(including the mob like majority’s voting for the same) will never respect the rights of the minority so long as the minority are held in the chains of captivity helpless to resist or(as in the case of the War 150 years ago) reassert their rights with new guards to provide for their future security.
I’m sorry modern day Yankees & RINO’s don’t understand that basic logical fact. The prison guards(mob of democracy) has no reason to respect their helpless prisoners(minority) and every reason to exploit them more & more.
There are only two possible ways the minority might secure or reclaim their rights:
1: Overpower/destroy the Government(majority) and take over.
2: Withdraw from the government(majority) and form new bounds for your future security. (As we did in 1776)
As #1 generally require a clever plan to implement a genocidal level of death & destruction on the part of the ruling majority while being as unlikely to succeed as it is distressful. #2 or what you call secession, and we call revolution is the only palatable option.
I deserve better countrymen than the likes of you. Probably wouldn’t have that problem then. It is my biggest complaint, clueless wusses like you who wouldn’t know what a real republic was if it bit you on the ass.
No, we have Detroit (and Chicago, and Baltimore, and Tuscaloosa, and Memphis, and Orlando, and...) now.
I'm as Yankee as they come, and I would have fought over Sumter, too.
But if you think the situation with regard to the descendants of the slaves and the rest of us is an "acceptable solution", you're out of your mind.
The democrats of the 1930's were still the anti-Lincoln Party.
To think his graven form is encased in a white marble grecco-roman temple is a joke. Oh brother....
“Can you please post the title and the authors of the textbooks in your schools that made those claims? I never saw any such claims in my k-12 education. Ever.”
Professor Kari Frederickson
University of Alabama
No more racist than you my friend.
I forget are you the one on the left or the right?
The hit dog howls.
The uneducated jackass types.
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.