Skip to comments.
Ken Burns' "Congress" Is Pure Blather
Oregon Magazine ^
| 26 May 2003
| "LL"
Posted on 06/02/2003 8:14:12 AM PDT by Ronly Bonly Jones
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-194 last
To: Grand Old Partisan
Prior to the requirement for a ballot, most states had "voice" votes recorded in person. As you noted, later each political party would distribute ballots - most in a distinct color/size to better identify at a glance their "faithful". In the South, there were few if any "ballots" distributed for Lincoln's party - his party was a truly sectional with it's Whig tendicies/tariffs/internal improvement platform. As you yourself have observed, there were numerous "union" supporters in the South, and abolitionists as well. Given that he did have his supporters in the South, it stands to reason that if he received no votes, it was either no "ballots" with his name were available, or that the financial platform he espoused would be harmful to the Southern states.
181
posted on
06/04/2003 8:38:24 PM PDT
by
4CJ
(If at first you don't secede, try, try again.)
To: Diddle E. Squat
I can now add 'The War of Northern Aggression' to those phrases.Good. Here's a phrase to help to identify dictators and despots:
'What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet! Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, I raise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war, I suppose I have a right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy. Nor do I urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the South.'
Abraham Lincoln, "Reply to Emancipation Memorial Presented by Chicago Christians of All Denominations", 13 Sep 1862, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler. Ed, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953-55, Vol. 5, p. 421
Lincoln wanted the blacks to rise up in revolt and massacre the innocent women and children of the South. They didn't.
182
posted on
06/04/2003 8:54:59 PM PDT
by
4CJ
(If at first you don't secede, try, try again.)
To: 4ConservativeJustices
Thanks! You are actually agreeing with me. My point was that the unpopularity of the Republican Party in the South until the 1960s was not because of Reconstruction, but because it never had any support in the South even prior to the Civil War, as evinced by the Republican ticket getting ZERO votes in ten of the eleven states which would secede.
183
posted on
06/04/2003 8:55:17 PM PDT
by
Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
To: 4ConservativeJustices; Diddle E. Squat
The Emancipation Proclamation specifically appealed to the blacks not to rise up. The federal government did absolutely nothing to encourage an uprising. Your allegation is baseless.
184
posted on
06/04/2003 8:57:28 PM PDT
by
Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
To: Grand Old Partisan
My point was that the unpopularity of the Republican Party in the South until the 1960s was not because of Reconstruction, but because it never had any support in the South even prior to the Civil War, as evinced by the Republican ticket getting ZERO votes in ten of the eleven states which would secede.Just as I stated that there were abolitionists and union supporters in the South. The lack of votes for Lincoln had to be because his economic policies hurt Southerners - not a lack of support for abolistion/union.
The war waged against innocent civilians and Reconstruction plunder of the South is what devasted the South, and hardened their hearts toward the "Republican" Party.
Thomas Jefferson led the Democratic-Republican Party, which is closer to today's Republican platform of limited government than the Lincolnian platform of Whiggery.
185
posted on
06/04/2003 9:02:13 PM PDT
by
4CJ
(If at first you don't secede, try, try again.)
To: 4ConservativeJustices
You're missing the point -- not just mine but yours too. You posted to me on this thread because you were insisting that Lincoln received ZERO vites in the ten southern states because he was not "on the ballot" instead of the real reason, about which you now agree with me, that the Republican Party's lack of support dates from before the Civil War, not from Reconstruction.
So again, you are agreeing with me now.
186
posted on
06/05/2003 1:04:20 AM PDT
by
Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
To: mrustow
By attacking the conservative vote, you do the GOP no good. Oh, so it's his politics you hate, not his self-promoting ways. You have so damaged your own credibility,
You cooked up a nice strawman, friend - O'Rielly has nothing on you. Now let's get back to the discussion. Why do fellow conservatives slam Southerners when they are the cornerstone of the GOP vote? One look at the blue/red chart will show where the conservative stronghold lies.
I see nothing to be gained by attacking fellow conservatives. Neo, Paleo, Regular, and Decaff, we are conservatives and need to vote together. The constant riffs are brought on by outsiders with other agendas (selling books, maybe).
To: metesky
Writing a book is admirable and I respect that. Waving it in everybody's face is not. I have stated above I will reserve judgement on the piece until I read it.
My organized thoughts are in IT whitepapers and technical hash - not about politics.
To: DoctorMichael
When will the Republicans DEFUND this travesty? Defund? Heck Repulicans are co-enablers!
189
posted on
06/05/2003 6:50:47 AM PDT
by
Drango
(A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
To: Drango
190
posted on
06/05/2003 7:03:25 AM PDT
by
DoctorMichael
(........Welcome to the Jungle........)
To: stainlessbanner; mrustow
SB, you are one of my favorite adversaries on Free Republic since -- the book biz aside -- you do not get personal and stay on topic. Thanks!
Conservatives are indeed the cornerstone of the GOP vote, but you vastly overestimate the number of neo-Conservatives in the conservative movement. In fact, you vastly overestimate the conservativeness of neo-Confederates, who vernerate American insurgents who killed 360,000 U. S. troops and defenders of slavery -- there's nothing conservative (or venerable) about insurgents in this country killing U. S. troops in defense of a "right" to own other human beings. For every neo-Confederate it caters to, the Grand Old Party loses four or five potential Republican voters of true conservative principles.
191
posted on
06/05/2003 7:12:02 AM PDT
by
Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
To: stainlessbanner; metesky; mrustow
OOPS
SB, you are one of my favorite adversaries on Free Republic since -- the book biz aside -- you do not get personal and stay on topic. Thanks!
Conservatives are indeed the cornerstone of the GOP vote, but you vastly overestimate the number of neo-CONFEDERATES in the conservative movement. In fact, you vastly overestimate the conservativeness of neo-Confederates, who vernerate American insurgents who killed 360,000 U. S. troops and defenders of slavery -- there's nothing conservative (or venerable) about insurgents in this country killing U. S. troops in defense of a "right" to own other human beings. For every neo-Confederate it caters to, the Grand Old Party loses four or five potential Republican voters of true conservative principles.
192
posted on
06/05/2003 7:14:08 AM PDT
by
Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
To: stainlessbanner; metesky; mrustow
ONE MORE TIME
SB, you are one of my favorite adversaries on Free Republic since -- the book biz aside -- you do not get personal and stay on topic. Thanks!
Conservatives are indeed the cornerstone of the GOP vote, but you vastly overestimate the number of neo-CONFEDERATES in the conservative movement. In fact, you vastly overestimate the conservativeness of neo-Confederates, who venerate American insurgents in their defense of slavery killed 360,000 U. S. troops -- there's nothing conservative (or venerable) about insurgents in this country killing U. S. troops in defense of a "right" to own other human beings. For every neo-Confederate it caters to, the Grand Old Party loses four or five potential Republican voters of true conservative principles.
193
posted on
06/05/2003 7:18:23 AM PDT
by
Grand Old Partisan
(You can read about my history of the GOP at www.republicanbasics.com)
To: Grand Old Partisan; All
you vastly overestimate the number of neo-CONFEDERATES in the conservative movement.Do I? The Paleo vs. Neo-Cons threads indicate otherwise, as do many of the WBTS threads on FR. I'll toss this one out to our fellow FReepers.....
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-194 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson