Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
Concurring bump.
The South's embrace of big government dates back to FDR and the New Deal.
Not only do neo blue bellies rewrite 19th century history, they deny current facts. Wow you guys are sick.
Your inbred regional bigotry is noted.
Which region of the USA is the most conservative?
I dare say 90% would answer 'B'.
Wrong on all counts, FRiend.
The objective fact is that rural counties, or rural congressional districts, in the South are no more or less conservative than rural areas anywhere else, including such Peoples' Republics as New York and California.
Indeed, as other posters have pointed out here: many conservatives live in big cities, simply too few to control their governments.
More to the point: if you study rankings in Congress from most Conservative to most Liberal, you'll see that as many conservative leaders come from outside the South as not.
For example, in it's most recent rankings the National Journal (strange, but I can't find ACU's rankings) lists the six most conservative Congressmen as two from Arizona, one from Colorado and three from Texas.
The Senate's most conservative member comes from Oklahoma.
So the truth of the matter is, while Southerners can today legitimately claim to be as conservative as anyone else, they cannot seriously pretend to be more conservative than every other region.
Perhaps I can summarize it this way: while the South is welcomed as valuable members of our Conservative team, the South is not automatically the coach, or even, necessarily the quarterback.
;-)
Ouch! I’m crushed! Lately even cva has been turning in a better effort than you. So sad to see it when someone has lost their edge.
We’re all pulling for ya ;-)
Calling Lincoln "fascist" is just as ludicrous as calling, say, George Washington a "fascist".
Both loved their country, neither was a "fascist".
First of all, the political word "fascism" wasn't even invented until the First World War and Mussolini's party in Italy, so nobody before that could necessarily match Mussolini's definition.
Second, fascists all claimed to be socialists -- i.e., National Socialists -- which in no way describes George Washington or Lincoln.
Third, like Washington's, Lincoln's actions merely defeated a military power that not only provoked and started war against the United States, but in the Confederacy's case, formally declared war on the United States.
So there's nothing "fascist" about defeating a declared enemy of the United States.
“Lincoln was a fascist in my opinion. Maybe the first fascist.”
I don’t disagree with you on that, but I think modern research is starting to reflect that Lincoln was likely a bi-polar closet queer.
There is your third time posting "that word", which by common understanding means you have now three-times admitted to losing the argument, and so resort to nothing but name-calling.
But more to your point: in the immortal words of John Adams and Ronald Reagan:
So whatever facts we learned in school, they are still facts, no matter how much we might wish otherwise.
Yes, of course, there may well be more facts, which would change the picture considerably, but those have to be carefully establish.
And your repeated use of "that word" does not change any facts, FRiend. ;-)
central_va: "Some as adults, study original sources and rise above it, some don't."
Sorry, but "original sources" don't support Neo-Confederate revisionists' "history", since it is only a collection of myths intended to salve "wounded pride" in descendants of the losing side.
Sorry, I let you get away with a ludicrous post trying to equate your views to Madison's.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Lee'sGhost: "Even Federalist Madison opined that there was/is an 'extraconstitutional right to revolt against conditions of ‘intolerable oppression’; but if the case cannot be made (that such conditions exist), then he rejected secession—as a violation of the Constitution."
Madison's view is exactly my own, and yours exactly the opposite.
Lee'sGhost: "The only way Comrade Brojoe can square with his beliefs is to have us believe that the oppression being brought upon the south was of the tolerable type."
When South Carolina first declared secession, in December 1860, there was not only no "tolerable type" oppression, there was no oppression -- none, zero, zip, nada.
So South Carolina and every other Deep South state declared secession, in Madison's term: "at pleasure", meaning not for some constitutionally justifiable reason.
Then those states immediately committed many acts of rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence" before starting outright war by assaulting Fort Sumter, in April 1861.
On May 6, 1861 the Confederacy formally declared war on the United States.
But the first Confederate soldier killed directly in battle with a Union force came on June 10, 1861.
Bottom line: while the Confederacy declared secession "at pleasure" thus violating our Founders Original Intent, the Union delayed responding to the Confederacy's many acts of rebellion or war until all possibility of peace was gone.
Better put some ice on that lip, comrade.
LOL!
I'll take that to mean you have no serious response, and concede my points.
Thanks. ;-)
Modern research is a bit high-falutin' a term for it.
"Anti-Lincoln propaganda" might be more accurate.
The fact is that Lincoln was as much a loyal family-man as anyone of his time, or of ours for that matter.
As for allegations of "bi-polar", the evidence shows that when times were worst, Lincoln obviously felt bad.
When events improved, so did Lincoln's outlook.
So that's not "bi-polar", that's being a normal human being.
Finally, the smartest, most experienced man in Lincoln's cabinet was William Seward, Secretary of State.
After an initial rough go, where Seward's views clashed with Lincoln's, Seward reported to friends that Lincoln was "the best among us".
Seward was correct, the rest is nonsense.
I see that the Lost Cause Losers’s 3rd string have arrived to the discussion ;-)
Most posters here concede the point that Reconstruction was not as nice to the South as it should have been, and so there has been virtually no debate on it -- not that I've seen.
But we should note that after Lincoln's assassination, East Tennessean Democrat Andrew Johnson became president, and did his best to protect the South from Radical Republicans' hopes for vengeance.
That was behind their efforts to impeach Johnson and remove him from office.
The question is whether Lincoln woulda, coulda been "kinder and gentler" to the South than Johnson was?
Some historians think so, but maybe the point can be debated?
LOL. There is not much of a discussion to be made here. It is the same old yanqui propaganda repeated over and over, and used to justify the wayward nature of the beast Lincoln helped create.
The other question is whether, anywhere in world history, there’s ever been a rebellious region that waged war against the government that’s ever been treated as well in defeat as the south was.
Again, you are wrong. That is my very serious response and concede only that you are a neo-comm.
Thanks. ;-)
Guess that’s all takes to beat the neo-comm’s turd string.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would include Virginia in that description.
All would say South or Central-West.
Based on the last 80 years or so, the most consistently conservative area of the country starts in Oklahoma, goes north through Kansas and Nebraska and the Dakotas, takes a left and continues through Montana and Idaho, then goes south to Utah and Wyoming. The south are recent converts by comparison.
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.