Posted on 04/21/2023 1:33:11 PM PDT by Twotone
CNN anchor Don Lemon abruptly ended a segment with Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy after a tense back-and-forth about gun rights and black Americans. What happened?
During an interview on "CNN This Morning," co-host Poppy Harlow asked Ramaswamy about his speech last week at the NRA convention. In that speech, Ramaswamy connected gun control laws and the campaign to oppress black Americans after the Civil War.
We fought a civil war in this country to give black Americans the equal protection under the law that we failed to secure them in 1776. But then, you want to know what happened? Southern states passed anti-gun laws that stopped black people from owning guns; the Democrat Party, then as in now, wanted to put them back in chains.
Ramaswamy told Harlow that he was referring to President Joe Biden's infamous 2012 claim that Republicans want to put black Americans "back in chains."
But in reality, Ramaswamy said, he believes the Democratic Party's agenda — from Lyndon Johnson to Joe Biden — is "really bad for the black community" and "holding black Americans back."
That's when Lemon registered his astonishment that Ramaswamy connected oppression to gun control laws.
"I don't really see what one has to do with the other," Lemon argued. "That war was not fought for black people to have guns."
"That war was fought for black people to have freedoms in this country, actually," Ramaswamy fired back. "That's why the Civil War was fought."
The men then embarked on a disagreement about whether black Americans enjoy any freedom today. Lemon argued they don't, a claim Ramaswamy said is a "disservice to our country." It was at that point that Lemon attempted to discredit Ramaswamy because he is not black.
"When you are in black skin and you live in this country, then you can disagree with me," Lemon told Ramaswamy.
"Don, I think we have to be able to talk about these issues in the open regardless of the color of our skin," Ramaswamy pushed back. "Black Americans today ... absolutely have equal rights in this country."
Lemon, however, claimed that Ramaswamy was "insulting" black people and said "it's infuriating" for Ramaswamy to connect gun control and the oppression of black Americans.
The two then argued back and forth over whose version of history is correct. Lemon said Ramaswamy was wrong, but when Ramaswamy asked Lemon to specify what he is wrong about, Lemon incorrectly restated Ramaswamy's argument, alleging Ramaswamy believes the Civil War was fought "only for black people to get guns."
At the end of their argument, Lemon appeared to retierate his belief that Ramaswamy had no justification for his argument because he is not black.
"I think we should be able to express our view regardless of the color of our skin. We should have this debate without me regarding you as a black man," Ramaswamy argued.
"I think it's insulting that you're sitting here explaining to me about what it's like to be black in America," Lemon responded.
The CNN host then ended the conversation by scolding Ramaswamy, telling him that he was not debating in a fair or honest manner.
Is Ramaswamy right? It is true that after the Civil War, southern states passed what are known as the "Black Codes" to prevent newly freed slaves from possessing and owning firearms.
... For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own satiety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
The South stupidly thought by refusing to sell its cotton, it would bring European nations to its side. This was before the blockade became effective. Had they sold cotton then, they would have had more money to fight the war.
If you look at what was available to both sides, the South had little chance of winning even though their conditions for victory were much less than the north’s—the north had to conquer the south, while the south only had to avoid being conquered.
So Ramaswamy can hold his own under media pressure.
Good for him.
“The War of Northern Aggression” is more accurate from a Southern perspective, “
Well I grew up in the south side of Chicago!
Lemon is a lousy drunk who eschews show prep and has been through producer after producer. We nearly got him with the old lady insult over the winter and Chris Licht would love to get rid of Mad-Don-uh, but he doesn't have another low-down down-low waiting in the wings to replace him -- although Gillum is returning calls, Chris. LOFL.
In Chicago, is it the war of ‘Southern Aggression’?
No. In my school it was about Federalism taking over States Rights.
Personally, I think the Nuns in my Catholic school nailed it.
Seems like a good decision now.
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.