Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Jefferson Memorial is about the most beautiful and inspiring thing I saw in D.C. Serene but uplifting at the same time, and full of his beautiful words. Jefferson had a brilliant mind and a knack for expressing it.
Yes, he owned slaves and he believed blacks were an inferior race. He was born into a Southern planter family and inherited 5,000 acres and 52 slaves from his father as a young man; his father-in-law's estate provided him two more plantations and over 100 more slaves. It was a fact of life to him.
I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater here. I am not defending slavery; I just don't think we need to impose today's societal standards on someone from so long ago.
I could be wrong.
Yeah, and then I left the slavery party and became a Republican and voted for Reagan. That was my point.If you found a "party of slavery" yeah you musta been.
Yeah, and then I left the slavery party and became a Republican and voted for Reagan. That was my point.If you found a "party of slavery" yeah you musta been.
Yeah, and then I left the slavery party and became a Republican and voted for Reagan. That was my point.If you found a "party of slavery" yeah you musta been.
Never saw Reagan in blackface or wearing a Klan hat, or any Republlican for that matter. |And you thought that stuff died out in the 50s? Not so for Demoicrats, certainly. Do you have any interest in Virginia state politics btw?Yeah, and then I left the slavery party and became a Republican and voted for Reagan. That was my point.If you found a "party of slavery" yeah you musta been.
So like as soon as you saw the republican candidates waving more Confederate flag, that pushed your switch? Interesting. Why did you make the change when Republicans began embracing that southern conservatism and defending the Confederacy?
Never saw Reagan in blackface or wearing a Klan hat, or any Republlican for that matter. |And you thought that stuff died out in the 50s? Not so for Demoicrats, certainly. Do you have any interest in Virginia state politics btw?Yeah, and then I left the slavery party and became a Republican and voted for Reagan. That was my point.If you found a "party of slavery" yeah you musta been.
So like as soon as you saw the republican candidates waving more Confederate flag, that pushed your switch? Interesting. Why did you make the change when Republicans began embracing that southern conservatism and defending the Confederacy?
Slavery existed in the south for over two hundred years before the “party of slavery” was formed. The Democratic Party was formed just 30 years before the civil warHey, I supported the party of slavery before Reagan. I even voted for Carter first time arorund. I was young and stupid.Don't worry. Remember, the Republican president hasn't been born yet. Besides, Democrats were the slave owners, ... still are.
Well it was Southern Conservatives. No matter what party got their votes. Anti-federalist, Democrat Republican, Southern Democrat, Conservative Democrat, Dixiecrat or now Republican they have always ended up on the wrong end of human rights.
And yes the Southern or Conservative Democrats were the slave owners. And the Dixiecrats or those who left the hDemocratic party for abandoning their conservative roots were the ones who pushed the building of them in opposition to civil rights.
And the Southern Whigs, and the Southern Know Nothings, and the Southern Democratic-Republicans, etc etc, but more to the point, and the Southern Those With No Party At All Because The Entire Fucking Universe Doesn't And Never Did Revolve Around Political Parties.
Again for the meatheads --- NO ONE EVER NEEDED A POLITICAL PARTY TO OWN A SLAVE. Even looooong before George Washington -- who himself had no political party.
Yes. Of course. It was formed because of the threat to the institution of slavery. Had it not been for Republicans, we might still have slavery today.Slavery existed in the south for over two hundred years before the “party of slavery” was formed. The Democratic Party was formed just 30 years before the civil war
Who's Smirk Boi? Miller?The Jefferson Memorial is about the most beautiful and inspiring thing I saw in D.C. Serene but uplifting at the same time, and full of his beautiful words. Jefferson had a brilliant mind and a knack for expressing it.
Yes, he owned slaves and he believed blacks were an inferior race. He was born into a Southern planter family and inherited 5,000 acres and 52 slaves from his father as a young man; his father-in-law's estate provided him two more plantations and over 100 more slaves. It was a fact of life to him.
I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater here. I am not defending slavery; I just don't think we need to impose today's societal standards on someone from so long ago.
I could be wrong.
No, actually you can't.
This red herring idea that taking down UDC statues has something to do with slaveowning is a deflection told by idiots, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. It's the same tactic they recently tried to get Smirk-Boi off the hook with "b-but but looka the Black Israelites".
Yes. Of course. It was formed because of the threat to the institution of slavery. Had it not been for Republicans, we might still have slavery today.Slavery existed in the south for over two hundred years before the “party of slavery” was formed. The Democratic Party was formed just 30 years before the civil war
Oh Gawd! Yet another fag from the party of slavery.Yes. Of course. It was formed because of the threat to the institution of slavery. Had it not been for Republicans, we might still have slavery today.Slavery existed in the south for over two hundred years before the “party of slavery” was formed. The Democratic Party was formed just 30 years before the civil war
Agree. Southern Conservatives felt that their party was abandoning them so formed a new one. Which when that party began opposing them, they broke off with their Southern Democrats (became the Conservative Democrats).
But you are right. From Slavery to civil rights, to womens rights, to gay and transgender rights, the party that stands on the side of southern conservatives for their votes always ends up on the wrong side of history when it comes to treating humans like humans.
Strawman fallacy.Are the Jefferson Memorial, Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore next?
Will the Talicrats tear down the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore next? Is the removal of monuments really about social justice, or is it about left wing hate or about having a hot issue to energize the dumb liberal fanatics for election day?
Here's A List Of All The Monuments Liberals Want To Tear Down So Far
Yes. Of course. It was formed because of the threat to the institution of slavery.Slavery existed in the south for over two hundred years before the “party of slavery” was formed. The Democratic Party was formed just 30 years before the civil war
Had it not been for Republicans, we might still have slavery today.
Slavery existed in the south for over two hundred years before the “party of slavery” was formed. The Democratic Party was formed just 30 years before the civil warHey, I supported the party of slavery before Reagan. I even voted for Carter first time arorund. I was young and stupid.Don't worry. Remember, the Republican president hasn't been born yet. Besides, Democrats were the slave owners, ... still are.
Well it was Southern Conservatives. No matter what party got their votes. Anti-federalist, Democrat Republican, Southern Democrat, Conservative Democrat, Dixiecrat or now Republican they have always ended up on the wrong end of human rights.
And yes the Southern or Conservative Democrats were the slave owners. And the Dixiecrats or those who left the hDemocratic party for abandoning their conservative roots were the ones who pushed the building of them in opposition to civil rights.
And the Southern Whigs, and the Southern Know Nothings, and the Southern Democratic-Republicans, etc etc, but more to the point, and the Southern Those With No Party At All Because The Entire Fucking Universe Doesn't And Never Did Revolve Around Political Parties.
Again for the meatheads --- NO ONE EVER NEEDED A POLITICAL PARTY TO OWN A SLAVE. Even looooong before George Washington -- who himself had no political party.
Who's Smirk Boi? Miller?The Jefferson Memorial is about the most beautiful and inspiring thing I saw in D.C. Serene but uplifting at the same time, and full of his beautiful words. Jefferson had a brilliant mind and a knack for expressing it.
Yes, he owned slaves and he believed blacks were an inferior race. He was born into a Southern planter family and inherited 5,000 acres and 52 slaves from his father as a young man; his father-in-law's estate provided him two more plantations and over 100 more slaves. It was a fact of life to him.
I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater here. I am not defending slavery; I just don't think we need to impose today's societal standards on someone from so long ago.
I could be wrong.
No, actually you can't.
This red herring idea that taking down UDC statues has something to do with slaveowning is a deflection told by idiots, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. It's the same tactic they recently tried to get Smirk-Boi off the hook with "b-but but looka the Black Israelites".
That a hell of a long-winded post about the fucking obvious. I have no idea what your point is and I can't say I much care. Are you trying to impress someone?Yes. Of course. It was formed because of the threat to the institution of slavery.Slavery existed in the south for over two hundred years before the “party of slavery” was formed. The Democratic Party was formed just 30 years before the civil war
Really. In 1834 huh? Or as some here would have it, in 1828?
Why don't you essplain to the class what "threat to the institution" was going on in the 1830s. And how after that point, half of the 8 POTUSes were Whigs, three out of four of which were also slaveowners.
Opposition to slavery had always been there, as far back as Columbus' chaplain Bartholomé de las Casas. It simply didn't prevail for its first three centuries.
Had it not been for Republicans, we might still have slavery today.
By the middle of the 19th century, slavery was on its way out the door. The still-current and former colonies of Britain, France and Spain were already abolishing and for the most part had abolished. In fact, had Lincoln just let the Confederacy go fend for itself it would have economically starved, with slavery no longer acceptable in the world and cotton production already shifting to the middle east, thereby depriving the Confederacy, or at least its planter élite who started the War, of a major lifeblood.
Credit the Republicans (of the 1860s) with being the catalyst, but Abolition was clearly inevitable. By the 1860s the US was one of the last places on earth to still have legal slavery.
That a hell of a long-winded post about the fucking obvious. I have no idea what your point is and I can't say I much care. Are you trying to impress someone?Yes. Of course. It was formed because of the threat to the institution of slavery.Slavery existed in the south for over two hundred years before the “party of slavery” was formed. The Democratic Party was formed just 30 years before the civil war
Really. In 1834 huh? Or as some here would have it, in 1828?
Why don't you essplain to the class what "threat to the institution" was going on in the 1830s. And how after that point, half of the 8 POTUSes were Whigs, three out of four of which were also slaveowners.
Opposition to slavery had always been there, as far back as Columbus' chaplain Bartholomé de las Casas. It simply didn't prevail for its first three centuries.
Had it not been for Republicans, we might still have slavery today.
By the middle of the 19th century, slavery was on its way out the door. The still-current and former colonies of Britain, France and Spain were already abolishing and for the most part had abolished. In fact, had Lincoln just let the Confederacy go fend for itself it would have economically starved, with slavery no longer acceptable in the world and cotton production already shifting to the middle east, thereby depriving the Confederacy, or at least its planter élite who started the War, of a major lifeblood.
Credit the Republicans (of the 1860s) with being the catalyst, but Abolition was clearly inevitable. By the 1860s the US was one of the last places on earth to still have legal slavery.
Are the Jefferson Memorial, Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore next?
Will the Talicrats tear down the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore next? Is the removal of monuments really about social justice, or is it about left wing hate or about having a hot issue to energize the dumb liberal fanatics for election day?
Here's A List Of All The Monuments Liberals Want To Tear Down So Far
What do the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument and Mt. Rushmore have to do with the Lost Cause Cult?
You know --- the bullshit that put up the ENTIRE rest of your specious list?
Fucking dumbass.
Actually there is a connection for one of them. Sort of.
See that citation of the Confederate soldier carving on Stone Mountain?
Gutzon Borglum was supposed to do that originally. In commemoration of the Klan being established there on Thanksgiving Day 1915. Borglum was a rabid Klanner.
He's also the sculptor who built Mt. Rushmore. But not for the UDC.
Strawman fallacy.Are the Jefferson Memorial, Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore next?
Will the Talicrats tear down the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore next? Is the removal of monuments really about social justice, or is it about left wing hate or about having a hot issue to energize the dumb liberal fanatics for election day?
Here's A List Of All The Monuments Liberals Want To Tear Down So Far
Are the Jefferson Memorial, Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore next?
Will the Talicrats tear down the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore next? Is the removal of monuments really about social justice, or is it about left wing hate or about having a hot issue to energize the dumb liberal fanatics for election day?
Here's A List Of All The Monuments Liberals Want To Tear Down So Far
What do the Jefferson Memorial, the Washington Monument and Mt. Rushmore have to do with the Lost Cause Cult?
You know --- the bullshit that put up the ENTIRE rest of your specious list?
Fucking dumbass.
Actually there is a connection for one of them. Sort of.
See that citation of the Confederate soldier carving on Stone Mountain?
Gutzon Borglum was supposed to do that originally. In commemoration of the Klan being established there on Thanksgiving Day 1915. Borglum was a rabid Klanner.
He's also the sculptor who built Mt. Rushmore. But not for the UDC.
So?
