SkinssRvA Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 3 hours ago, nonniey said: The positions didn't flip what flipped was what Races/Identities the Democrats would favor though policy. The white racists then left that party because it provided them no advantage Kind of, if you are referencing the new deal. And kind of, to your second point as well. 56 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said: Strom Thurmond https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond Careful using this logic for le big switch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, SkinssRvA said: Kind of, if you are referencing the new deal. And kind of, to your second point as well. Careful using this logic for le big switch How so? Thurmond switched parties in 1964 as a refutation of the Ds for passing the Civil Rights Act: From Wikipedia "Thurmond supported racial segregation throughout much of his career. He wrote the first version of the Southern Manifesto, announcing southern disagreement with the 1954 US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which ruled that public school segregation was unconstitutional.[15] In an unsuccessful attempt to derail passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Thurmond made the longest filibuster ever conducted by a single senator, speaking for a total of 24 hours and 18 minutes. Cots were brought in from a nearby hotel for the legislators to sleep on while Thurmond discussed increasingly irrelevant and obscure topics, including his grandmother's biscuit recipe. Other Southern senators, who had agreed as part of a compromise not to filibuster this bill, were upset with Thurmond because they thought his defiance made them look incompetent to their constituents.[16] 1960s[edit] Strom Thurmond, c. 1961 Thurmond was increasingly at odds with the national Democratic Party, some of whose leaders were supporting the civil rights movement led by African Americans in the South seeking enforcement of their constitutional rights as citizens to suffrage and equal treatment under the law. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 curbed the disenfranchisement of blacks in Southern states such as South Carolina. On September 16, 1964, he switched his party affiliation to the Republican Party. He played an important role in attracting support among white voters in South Carolina for the Republican presidential candidates Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1968. South Carolina and other states of the Deep South had supported the Democrats in every national election from the end of Reconstruction, when white Democrats re-established political control in the South, to 1960. However, discontent with the national Democrats' increasing support for civil rights resulted in John F. Kennedy's barely winning the state in 1960. Adlai Stevenson had narrowly won the state in 1952 by only 5,000 votes, receiving 50.72% of the vote compared to 49.28% for Dwight D. Eisenhower. In comparison, in 1948, the Republican candidate for president, Thomas Dewey, had received just 3.78% of the vote (Thurmond, running as a Dixiecrat, had received 71.97% of the vote, while Truman had received 24.14% of the vote, for a combined 96.11% of the vote going to Democrats).[17] (In 1960, Thurmond received 14 votes as Vice President from 14 of the 15 electors who voted for Harry Byrd as President, but this did not affect the outcome of that presidential election.[citation needed])" Add: Pretty marked switch in electoral college map 1960 - 1964, wouldn't you say?http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/ Edited August 17, 2017 by RedskinsFan44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 4 hours ago, nonniey said: Nope from the beginning the Civil was over slavery no matter what they taught in Virginia. Virginia didn't teach that. Ken Burns' documentary on PBS (evil lefty educational channel) about the Civil War did...it's about 8 hours long, though...get ready to learn stuff you thought you knew but were just flat out wrong about. (I know I did.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinssRvA Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 12 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said: How so? Thurmond switched parties in 1964 as a refutation of the Ds for passing the Civil Rights Act: I would encourage you, if you'd like to use the Senate/Strom Thurmond case to look at all the other senate dixiecrats as well. I don't want to derail the thread but it's an interesting topic if there's another thread on it. Also, the civil war would be a great thread to have too as I see a lot of compelling thoughts and discussion points, and also just complete misinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Anyone who starts any new "civil war" crap will most likely be sent away forever. We have had so many of those, and some are still accessible. Besides, despite "all the stuff" one may have read, 98% of the people who like to do that particular pookie dance tend to be emote/ego "thinkers" with banty rooster attitudes more than detached, objective, questioning, scholarly types who may know there are actual specific steps taken for validating your sources (and how that's actually done correctly) for competent critical evaluations in such a matter. Or you get those people who do the dress up and reenact when the knights fought the cowboys. I like them. The champions of impotence so many CW re-litigators strive to be is old hat. Anyhoo, we'll have another civil war soon to scratch that itch and just in time afiac. (i'm just practicing. i want to be an edgelord) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 3 hours ago, skinny21 said: I truly appreciate you (and some others that have echoed the same sentiments) as a poster. And so it kind of saddens me to see this point made. Predicto nailed it way back in the thread - you have to look at why people have statues, roads, schools, etc. named after them. The WH is pushing the equivalency of Lee and Washington because they were both slave holders, but that's not why they are celebrated. For Lee, it is/was due to his role as a Confederate general, for Washington it's due to his role as a Revolutionary general, Founding Father and 1st President. Nobody is perfect, but we can generally agree that people are memorialized for the good things they've done, not their flaws. The "good" thing(s) Lee did are directly related to his role as a traitor fighting to uphold slavery. I'd go into the folks you mentioned, but hopefully you get the idea. But will that stop a movement developing to go after anything or anyone it decides has committed egregious wrong? I think not. . I've been anti-confederate long before it became fashionable but i think it is dangerous territory going down this route. There already have been proposals to rename buildings, streets and depictions of Presidents and other notable people from the past so I doubt it will end with Confederates. Someone else posted earlier in this thread (Ladyskins fan I think - maybe someone else) about the outrage of the day (she commented on the Redskins a couple years ago and now this). It worries me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 28 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said: Virginia didn't teach that. Ken Burns' documentary on PBS (evil lefty educational channel) about the Civil War did...it's about 8 hours long, though...get ready to learn stuff you thought you knew but were just flat out wrong about. (I know I did.) I've seen it. South Carolina and the other early secession states seceded because they wanted to protect slavery -that is a fact everything that follows was reaction to that or reactions to reactions. Yes I know Virginia seceded because of the state rights issues but that was in reaction to the Unions reaction to the other states secession (which was again done to protect slavery). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, nonniey said: I've seen it. South Carolina and the other early secession states seceded because they wanted to protect slavery -that is a fact everything that follows was reaction to that or reactions to reactions. Yes I know Virginia seceded because of the state rights issues but that was in reaction to the Unions reaction to the other states secession (which was again done to protect slavery). Yes, and the state right they most wanted to protect (as you infer) was the right to own slaves. You can't get around it... unless you choose to be dishonest with yourself and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 37 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said: Virginia didn't teach that. Ken Burns' documentary on PBS (evil lefty educational channel) about the Civil War did...it's about 8 hours long, though...get ready to learn stuff you thought you knew but were just flat out wrong about. (I know I did.) This is a really good explanation of the causes of the Civil War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 This one is a lot longer, but a declaration (and evidence to the contrary) by Jefferson Davis himself in the lead-up to the war is in the first 3 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 The second video is a repudiation of the one I posted :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Here's a good supplement to Martin's offering. It's more than uniquely important historical knowledge and a rousing celebration of the vibrant culture of the day. It's a roadmap to character. I followed the path sung of in the clip and have never regretted it despite the enormous challenge and personal sacrifice--even just becoming panther quick and leather tough was like super-struggly. (my fave part starts @ 1:40) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4rO5KFdc_w 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Anyone who has not read Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Address should read it. Hell, it should be required reading for all American students. "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...." If the words of the Vice President of the Confederacy at the time the attempt to secede don't convince people, those people just don't care about truth. 1 minute ago, MartinC said: The second video is a repudiation of the one I posted :-) Attempted repudiation, anyway. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 I may be the only person in America who has actually read the entirety of the Confederate Constitution. Article I, Section IX states: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed. In other words, it was unconstitutional to outlaw slavery. Article IV of the Confederate Constitution is amazing: The privileges and immunities clause specifically protects slavery into perpetuity. And my reading of section IV suggests that while one could lose property due to the conviction of a crime, slaves could never be taken. Obviously, there's not a lot of jurisprudence here. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired. Article IV, Section III lays the foundation for the Central and South American Slave Empire so many Confederates wanted: Confederate States may acquire new territory, and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 29 minutes ago, MartinC said: The second video is a repudiation of the one I posted :-) I know. The debate goes on... But no matter how the war started, the ending does not change. Neither will my spite for Trump, everything he stands for, and everything he says, does, or brags about. We all still good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinsFan44 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 perhaps events leading up to the war could give us a clue: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 44, don't you dare say it was started over a girl. I'll laugh myself into next week. (I could use it, tho...) ...edit...the laugh, that is... Edited August 17, 2017 by skinsmarydu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said: I know. The debate goes on... But no matter how the war started, the ending does not change. Neither will my spite for Trump, everything he stands for, and everything he says, does, or brags about. We all still good? Its clear maintaining the Union was Lincolns concern. But slavery was the issue tearing it apart. The South wanted to maintain their 'way of life' and economic system based on slavery. So wether Lincoln was acting based on a moral position against slavery, from a pure concern about maintaining the Union and seeing slavery as the issue threatening that or a mixture of the two - the war was ultimately about slavery. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Ok, if you really want to punish people for their Confedrat flag ideers and that good ole suthrin slavery, let them keep the statues, take away their football. "No football for you if you use the n word!" Watch 'em squirm then.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted August 18, 2017 Author Share Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) My first thought was why Montana has a confederate monument to begin with. Edited August 18, 2017 by No Excuses 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 2 hours ago, skinsmarydu said: (I could use it, tho...) ......... nearly a second George Takei gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 I found this timeline interesting. Not sure what y'all are going in circles about. I'll assume some people are defending the rebellion as just about federal taxation and a misunderstanding, but whatever. Most of the confederate statues are just generalized "soldier boys" posted to help ensure Jim Crow laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulSkin Posted August 18, 2017 Share Posted August 18, 2017 (edited) On slate.com. "The Landscape of Civil War Commemoration" North and south. They missed that one in Montana. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2015/07/civil_war_historical_markers_a_map_of_confederate_monuments_and_union_ones.html This is just a map of historical markers, not monuments. Edited August 18, 2017 by SoulSkin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now