150 Years Ago Today… Republicans Freed the Slaves

So, now in protest, you vote in lockstep with a party that is for big government, can't even do a budget, throws individual rights down the toilet and throws billions away on bankrupt green energy and racks up trillions in debt?

You're a fucking retard.

No silly. He just told you that he doesn't vote Republican any more.

If you think that the Republican Party is not the party of big government, you are being willfully blind. Government has grown more under Republican administrations than under Democrats. They only talk about small government, they don't DO it.
 
Pitiful parsing by you.

You and others are why libertarianism and its various expressions are almost always rejected in the electoral process.

So you are upset because I am accurate and you don't like that I pointed out the fact there. Would you prefer I response with inaccurate information? Or maybe just called him a name?
 
So, now in protest, you vote in lockstep with a party that is for big government, can't even do a budget, throws individual rights down the toilet and throws billions away on bankrupt green energy and racks up trillions in debt?

You're a fucking retard.

No silly. He just told you that he doesn't vote Republican any more.

If you think that the Republican Party is not the party of big government, you are being willfully blind. Government has grown more under Republican administrations than under Democrats. They only talk about small government, they don't DO it.

So Democrats are the party of small government now? Which is why there isnt a single platform they have that actually expands liberties for individuals rather than empowering government.
 
You are not accurate in suggesting that it was Truman who beat the Nazis and imperialists. HT became president less than a month before the fall of Berlin. You not suggesting that HT was not following the advice of FDR's subordinate leadership, are you?

Your meanspiritedness is a characteristic that helps people to easily reject libertarianism.

Pitiful parsing by you.

You and others are why libertarianism and its various expressions are almost always rejected in the electoral process.

So you are upset because I am accurate and you don't like that I pointed out the fact there. Would you prefer I response with inaccurate information? Or maybe just called him a name?
 
Last edited:
So Democrats are the party of small government now? Which is why there isnt a single platform they have that actually expands liberties for individuals rather than empowering government.

That's not what I said. I said that the Republicans are far worse than the Democrats when it comes to expanding government. The size of government, the cost of entitlements, and the numbers of people receiving those entitlements has ballooned to record size under each successive Republican administration.

Obama has shrunk the size of the US government, and Clinton substantially slowed its growth. Republicans TALK about shrinking government but they don't actually do that.

If YOU did your homework and checked facts, you would know that.
 
So Democrats are the party of small government now? Which is why there isnt a single platform they have that actually expands liberties for individuals rather than empowering government.

That's not what I said. I said that the Republicans are far worse than the Democrats when it comes to expanding government. The size of government, the cost of entitlements, and the numbers of people receiving those entitlements has ballooned to record size under each successive Republican administration.

Obama has shrunk the size of the US government, and Clinton substantially slowed its growth. Republicans TALK about shrinking government but they don't actually do that.

If YOU did your homework and checked facts, you would know that.
They talk a big game, but when they are actually in power, we see what happens.
 
Yep, the original Republican Party was something great. Too bad it lost its way starting about 45 years ago.

Now there is nothing but frothing hatred toward gays, Muslims, and immigrants.

How can something that is blatantly untrue be too bad? There is no hate for gays, muslims, or immigrants.

I have to give this ridiculous statement my highest grade: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Slavery in the form of share cropping continued until Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights laws of the mid 1960's.......100 years after Lincoln put something on paper.

Anyone who thinks slavery ended in the mid 1860's don't read much or didn't live in the southern U S during the 1940's and 1950's. Can you say Ku Klux Klan? A Christian organization by the way.

Paper freedom to blacks meant mass confusion all over the nation. It took nearly 100 years for the southern farmers to give an inch. The only thing that changed after the civil war was Blacks couldn't ride in the front of the bus. Ask Medgar Evers or Martin Luther King. Oh I forgot......you can't do that.

" On Monday, the U.S senate passed a non-binding resolution to apologize for its failure to enact anti-lynching legislation. The resolution states that the Senate "expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States."

More than 200 anti —lynching bills were introduced in congress in the first part of the century and the House of Representatives passed anti-lynching bills three times. However, the legislation was repeatedly blocked by [Democrat] Senators from the South and almost 5,000 people -— mostly African-Americans — were lynched between 1882 and 1968."
Senate Apologizes For Not Enacting Anti-Lynching Legislation, A Look at Journalist and Anti-Lynching Crusader Ida B. Wells



"During the early years of the Wilson administration (1913-1917), the Democratic Representatives submitted more racist legislation than had been introduced to any previous Congress....Southern Democrats regularly blocked the efforts of a few liberal Congressmen to pass protective legislation for blacks."
The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow | PBS



"However, the unstated causes that created the facts set forth in the resolution indisputably demonstrate that there is a specific group directly responsible for the Senate's egregious failure to pass an anti-lynching law. That group should join with the Senate and offer its deepest regret and humblest heartfelt apology to the families of lynching victims. Which group? The Democrat Party."
Why The Democratic Party Should Apologize To The Families of Lynching Victims | Worldview Weekend
 
Slavery in the form of share cropping continued until Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights laws of the mid 1960's.......100 years after Lincoln put something on paper.

Anyone who thinks slavery ended in the mid 1860's don't read much or didn't live in the southern U S during the 1940's and 1950's. Can you say Ku Klux Klan? A Christian organization by the way.

Paper freedom to blacks meant mass confusion all over the nation. It took nearly 100 years for the southern farmers to give an inch. The only thing that changed after the civil war was Blacks couldn't ride in the front of the bus. Ask Medgar Evers or Martin Luther King. Oh I forgot......you can't do that.

" On Monday, the U.S senate passed a non-binding resolution to apologize for its failure to enact anti-lynching legislation. The resolution states that the Senate "expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching, the ancestors of whom were deprived of life, human dignity and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States."

More than 200 anti —lynching bills were introduced in congress in the first part of the century and the House of Representatives passed anti-lynching bills three times. However, the legislation was repeatedly blocked by [Democrat] Senators from the South and almost 5,000 people -— mostly African-Americans — were lynched between 1882 and 1968."
Senate Apologizes For Not Enacting Anti-Lynching Legislation, A Look at Journalist and Anti-Lynching Crusader Ida B. Wells


...
And as late as 2005, what happened?

Here are the 20 Senators who
1) refused to co-sponsor the anti-lynching resolution, and
2) refused a roll-call vote so they'd have to put their name on the resolution.
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Christopher Bond (R-MO)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Conrad Burns (R-MT)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

Notice the overwhelming R's there?

Wall of shame.
 
Slavery in the form of share cropping continued until Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights laws of the mid 1960's.......100 years after Lincoln put something on paper.

Anyone who thinks slavery ended in the mid 1860's don't read much or didn't live in the southern U S during the 1940's and 1950's. Can you say Ku Klux Klan? A Christian organization by the way.

Paper freedom to blacks meant mass confusion all over the nation. It took nearly 100 years for the southern farmers to give an inch. The only thing that changed after the civil war was Blacks couldn't ride in the front of the bus. Ask Medgar Evers or Martin Luther King. Oh I forgot......you can't do that.

Hmm.., Weren't the majority of the South, Democrats between 1865 until the mid 1960's? It wasn't Republicans that segregated the Army, Was it?
It wasn't the Republicans who tried to keep the Little Rock High School segregated. Was it?
It wasn't Republicans that bombed churches in Mississippi. Was it?
They weren't Republicans that murdered all those Civil Rights people. Was it?
 
Slavery in the form of share cropping continued until Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights laws of the mid 1960's.......100 years after Lincoln put something on paper.

Anyone who thinks slavery ended in the mid 1860's don't read much or didn't live in the southern U S during the 1940's and 1950's. Can you say Ku Klux Klan? A Christian organization by the way.

Paper freedom to blacks meant mass confusion all over the nation. It took nearly 100 years for the southern farmers to give an inch. The only thing that changed after the civil war was Blacks couldn't ride in the front of the bus. Ask Medgar Evers or Martin Luther King. Oh I forgot......you can't do that.

Hmm.., Weren't the majority of the South, Democrats between 1865 until the mid 1960's? It wasn't Republicans that segregated the Army, Was it?
It wasn't the Republicans who tried to keep the Little Rock High School segregated. Was it?
It wasn't Republicans that bombed churches in Mississippi. Was it?
They weren't Republicans that murdered all those Civil Rights people. Was it?
Nope. It was conservatives.
 
So Democrats are the party of small government now? Which is why there isnt a single platform they have that actually expands liberties for individuals rather than empowering government.

That's not what I said. I said that the Republicans are far worse than the Democrats when it comes to expanding government. The size of government, the cost of entitlements, and the numbers of people receiving those entitlements has ballooned to record size under each successive Republican administration.

Obama has shrunk the size of the US government, and Clinton substantially slowed its growth. Republicans TALK about shrinking government but they don't actually do that.

If YOU did your homework and checked facts, you would know that.

Name one thing Obama has shrunk.
 
Yep, the original Republican Party was something great. Too bad it lost its way starting about 45 years ago.

Now there is nothing but frothing hatred toward gays, Muslims, and immigrants.

How can something that is blatantly untrue be too bad? There is no hate for gays, muslims, or immigrants.

I have to give this ridiculous statement my highest grade: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Doesn't change the fact that it's true.

Limited goverment isn't about hate towards any group of people. It's about empowering individuals and principled good government.
 
Slavery in the form of share cropping continued until Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights laws of the mid 1960's.......100 years after Lincoln put something on paper.

Anyone who thinks slavery ended in the mid 1860's don't read much or didn't live in the southern U S during the 1940's and 1950's. Can you say Ku Klux Klan? A Christian organization by the way.

Paper freedom to blacks meant mass confusion all over the nation. It took nearly 100 years for the southern farmers to give an inch. The only thing that changed after the civil war was Blacks couldn't ride in the front of the bus. Ask Medgar Evers or Martin Luther King. Oh I forgot......you can't do that.

Hmm.., Weren't the majority of the South, Democrats between 1865 until the mid 1960's? It wasn't Republicans that segregated the Army, Was it?
It wasn't the Republicans who tried to keep the Little Rock High School segregated. Was it?
It wasn't Republicans that bombed churches in Mississippi. Was it?
They weren't Republicans that murdered all those Civil Rights people. Was it?
Nope. It was conservatives.

Really?
President Woodrow Wilson was conservative?
Was Gov. Fabus a conservative?
Was Gov. George Wallace a conservative?
Was Bull Connor a conservative?

[Excedrpt]
In the 1948 election, after Harry Truman signed an Executive Order to desegregate the Army, a group of Southern Democrats known as Dixiecrats split from the Democratic Party in reaction to the inclusion of a civil rights plank in the party's platform. This followed a floor fight led by Minneapolis mayor (and soon-to-be senator) Hubert Humphrey. The disaffected Democrats formed the States' Rights Democratic, or Dixiecrat Party, and nominated Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for president. Thurmond carried four southern states in the general election: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The main plank of the States' Rights Democratic Party was maintaining segregation and Jim Crow in the South. The Dixiecrats, failing to deny the Democrats the presidency in 1948, soon dissolved, but the split lingered. In 1964, Thurmond was one of the first conservative southern Democrats to switch to the Republican Party.[citation needed]

In addition to the splits in the Democratic Party, the population movements associated with World War II had a significant effect on the makeup of the South. More than 5 million African Americans migrated from the South to the North and West in the second Great Migration lasting from 1940-1970. Starting before WWII, many took jobs in the defense industry in California and major industrial cities of the Midwest.[citation needed]

Changes in industry, growth in universities and the military establishment in turn attracted Northern transplants to the South, and bolstered the base of the Republican Party. In the post-war Presidential campaigns, Republicans did best in the fastest-growing states of the South with the most Northern settlers. In the 1952, 1956 and 1960 elections, Virginia, Tennessee and Florida went Republican, while Louisiana went Republican in 1956, and Texas twice voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower and once for John F. Kennedy. In 1956, Eisenhower received 48.9 percent of the Southern vote, becoming only the second Republican in history (after Ulysses S. Grant) to get a plurality of Southern votes.[citation needed]

The states of the Deep South remained loyal to the Democratic Party, which had not officially repudiated segregation. Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and North Carolina actually lost congressional seats from the 1950s to the 1970s, while South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia remained static.[citation needed]

The "Year of Birmingham" in 1963 highlighted racial issues in Alabama. Through the spring, there were marches and demonstrations to end legal segregation. The Movement's achievements in settlement with the local business class were overshadowed by bombings and murders by the Ku Klux Klan, most notoriously in the deaths of four girls in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church.[26]

After the Democrat George Wallace was elected as Governor of Alabama, he helped link the concept of states' rights and segregation, both in speeches and by creating crises to provoke Federal intervention. He opposed integration at the University of Alabama, and collaborated with the Ku Klux Klan in disrupting court-ordered integration of public schools in Birmingham in 1963.[26]
 
Answered above #70

Hmm.., Weren't the majority of the South, Democrats between 1865 until the mid 1960's? It wasn't Republicans that segregated the Army, Was it?
It wasn't the Republicans who tried to keep the Little Rock High School segregated. Was it?
It wasn't Republicans that bombed churches in Mississippi. Was it?
They weren't Republicans that murdered all those Civil Rights people. Was it?
Nope. It was conservatives.

Really?
President Woodrow Wilson was conservative?
Was Gov. Fabus a conservative?
Was Gov. George Wallace a conservative?
Was Bull Connor a conservative?

[Excedrpt]
In the 1948 election, after Harry Truman signed an Executive Order to desegregate the Army, a group of Southern Democrats known as Dixiecrats split from the Democratic Party in reaction to the inclusion of a civil rights plank in the party's platform. This followed a floor fight led by Minneapolis mayor (and soon-to-be senator) Hubert Humphrey. The disaffected Democrats formed the States' Rights Democratic, or Dixiecrat Party, and nominated Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina for president. Thurmond carried four southern states in the general election: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. The main plank of the States' Rights Democratic Party was maintaining segregation and Jim Crow in the South. The Dixiecrats, failing to deny the Democrats the presidency in 1948, soon dissolved, but the split lingered. In 1964, Thurmond was one of the first conservative southern Democrats to switch to the Republican Party.[citation needed]

In addition to the splits in the Democratic Party, the population movements associated with World War II had a significant effect on the makeup of the South. More than 5 million African Americans migrated from the South to the North and West in the second Great Migration lasting from 1940-1970. Starting before WWII, many took jobs in the defense industry in California and major industrial cities of the Midwest.[citation needed]

Changes in industry, growth in universities and the military establishment in turn attracted Northern transplants to the South, and bolstered the base of the Republican Party. In the post-war Presidential campaigns, Republicans did best in the fastest-growing states of the South with the most Northern settlers. In the 1952, 1956 and 1960 elections, Virginia, Tennessee and Florida went Republican, while Louisiana went Republican in 1956, and Texas twice voted for Dwight D. Eisenhower and once for John F. Kennedy. In 1956, Eisenhower received 48.9 percent of the Southern vote, becoming only the second Republican in history (after Ulysses S. Grant) to get a plurality of Southern votes.[citation needed]

The states of the Deep South remained loyal to the Democratic Party, which had not officially repudiated segregation. Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and North Carolina actually lost congressional seats from the 1950s to the 1970s, while South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia remained static.[citation needed]

The "Year of Birmingham" in 1963 highlighted racial issues in Alabama. Through the spring, there were marches and demonstrations to end legal segregation. The Movement's achievements in settlement with the local business class were overshadowed by bombings and murders by the Ku Klux Klan, most notoriously in the deaths of four girls in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church.[26]

After the Democrat George Wallace was elected as Governor of Alabama, he helped link the concept of states' rights and segregation, both in speeches and by creating crises to provoke Federal intervention. He opposed integration at the University of Alabama, and collaborated with the Ku Klux Klan in disrupting court-ordered integration of public schools in Birmingham in 1963.[26]
 
You ask if George Wallace a conservative?
and Bull Connor?

:lol:

Of course they were. Jezuz Christ.

The confederates were conservatives. Democratic conservative.

The later iterations of white supremacists were as well.

All one need do is look at the words of Wallace, they read just like current tea party slosh.

"However, we will not be intimidated by the vultures of the liberal left-wing press. We will not be deceived by their lies and distortions of truth. We will not be swayed by their brutal attacks upon the character and reputation of any honest citizen who dares stand up and fight for liberty . . .

You and I know that that's extremely difficult to do where our newspapers are owned by out-of-state interests. Newspapers which are run and operated by left-wing liberals, Communist sympathizers, and members of the Americans for Democratic Action and other Communist front organizations with high sounding names . . .

It is perfectly obvious from the left-wing liberal press and from the left-wing law journals that what the court is saying behind all the jargon is that they don't like our form of government.

They think they can establish a better one. In order to do so it is necessary that they overthrow our existing form, destroy the democratic institutions created by the people, change the outlook, religion, and philosophy . . . "
- George Wallace

Now who does that sound like?
 
"A left-wing monster has risen up in this nation. It has invaded the government. It has invaded the news media. It has invaded the leadership of many of our churches. It has invaded every phase and aspect of the life of freedom-loving people . . .

I am a conservative.

I intend to give the American people a clear choice. I welcome a fight between our philosophy and the liberal left-wing dogma which now threatens to engulf every man, woman, and child in the United States."

-- Democrat George C. Wallace, July 4, 1964
 

Forum List

Back
Top