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.
[
I love this argument.... The Republicans were actually Democrats and the Democrats fighting to keep slavery were actually Republicans.
Wrong; that's not the argument. The argument is that the Republicans were actually LIBERALS and the Democrats fighting to keep slavery were actually CONSERVATIVES.
Liberal does not equal Democrat. Conservative does not equal Republican. Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative, but he was a Republican. Grover Cleveland was not a liberal, but he was a Democrat. And so on. Ideology is one thing. Party is another.
Oh it's the old switcharoo bullshit argument again!
I know this game inside and out.
I have so much data on you Dems and the KKK and Jim Crow laws you'll wish you died as a child.
Just accept the fact that Republicans ended slavery and the KKK was started by Democrats.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to "redo" history.
You've got some tears on your side. You've got some answering to do.
Regarding the OP's article, the title of this thread is completely misleading. It's very clear that the author is condemning BOTH sides in the Civil War, but if he went into the details he would probably come down hardest on the side that seceded from the U.S. and then started the shooting. Lincoln actually WAS willing to compromise, to a degree that outraged radical abolitionists. His original program, before the Civil War upended the works, was to take a long road toward ending slavery. He wanted to keep slavery out of the Western territories and ensure that they became free states. That would tilt the balance of power in Congress, in the short term cutting out enabling legislation like the Fugitive Slave Act, and in the long run hopefully creating a basis for a constitutional amendment.
Radical abolitionists like Wendell Phillips abhorred this milquetoast attitude. He called Lincoln "A huckster in politics, a first-rate second-rate man." So there was definitely uncompromising God-is-with-us radicalism on both sides, but the difference is that on the Confederate side it ruled, while the Union side was ruled by moderation.
So really what he's upset about is not that Republicans freed the slaves, but that secessionists started the Civil War.
Now you are attempting to completely negate Lincoln freeing the slaves? oh this is too funny.
And you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to "redo" history.
I'm not trying to "redo" anything. What I said IS history. The Republicans in origin were a LIBERAL party, and they remained one throughout the late 19th and early 20th century.
You've got some tears on your side. You've got some answering to do.
No I don't, because I'm not a Democrat. I am a liberal. I know the difference. You, obviously, don't.
I'm not so sure that the columnist was upset over Republicans ending slavery as much as claiming that American exceptionalism exists and that all men are created equally.
Sad thing is they could have saved all those lives and all that money by merely exercising eminent domain and freeing the slaves. But unfortunately it cost us the blood of good (and bad) men to free the slaves instead of just money.
Yeah I thought it was kind of dumb.
Oh, and there is no way those Republicans would have supported gay marriage. Their platform was two fold: End slavery. Keep marriage between a man and a woman.
Well said, would've been nice had we at least tried a more diplomatic approach rather than being so quick to the gun. But hey it's america, it's just gotten progressively worse (the foreign policy that is) as our history has gone in terms of our favoring of war.
Slavery ended in europe without a war, probably could've happened here.
Hey there was the emninent domain option. It was out there but largely concidered radical. In hindsight, it would have fixed alot of problems. But Americans really didnt want to listen to the Pesky mormons at the time.
Besides, I guess it had to happen. Prophecies needing to be fulfilled and all. I wonder how the next century would have gone concidering the Germans learned how to build their war machine for the next three quarters of the century by studying how the North used their industry and the rails to defeat the South. Would there have been a World War 1 as early as we had it? Would Germany have been able to unite itself? Would they have figured it out on their own without studying us?
Lots of interesting what if questions. Interesting to speculate but you dont really know.
I've been more farther left than you that you can even dream of child.
So don't fuck with me. Republicans were never a liberal party. Your teachers should be fired.
I'm not so sure that the columnist was upset over Republicans ending slavery as much as claiming that American exceptionalism exists and that all men are created equally.
You're right that the columnist was making a commentary on "American exceptionalism", not bashing the Republicans over slavery. He/she (I didn't catch the name of the writer) wasn't arguing against the idea that all men are created equal. In fact, arguing in favor of "American exceptionalism" requires arguing against the equality of the brotherhood of man.
What makes you think the Republicans who ended slavery were conservatives? They were liberals. Just like the liberals who are fighting for equal rights for Gay folks.
Hey genius, can you point to anywhere I made any claim about the Republicans that ended slavery being anything other than Republicans? Have you always had the ability to see things that are not there, or is it something that happened after you became a liberal? Do you think the Republicans should have compromised on slavery? Should the people who are fighting for gay rights compromise?
They were Liberal AND Republican
The Conservatives supported slavery and states rights....just like today
I'm not so sure that the columnist was upset over Republicans ending slavery as much as claiming that American exceptionalism exists and that all men are created equally.
You're right that the columnist was making a commentary on "American exceptionalism", not bashing the Republicans over slavery. He/she (I didn't catch the name of the writer) wasn't arguing against the idea that all men are created equal. In fact, arguing in favor of "American exceptionalism" requires arguing against the equality of the brotherhood of man.
What I was shocked and I really mean this as a Canadian/American who can tell you "jump up" and love every minute of my diverse family was to find out there is this theology of slave descendant versus island versus continent black being taught in America.
This chills me to the bone. And Island and Continent aren't worth a piece of shit. Apparently according to the Professors.
I find this deeply disturbing. Let alone one of Obama's professors spouts this garbage (the one who was arrested) at a major university.
I've been more farther left than you that you can even dream of child.
LOL yeah, right. When I was a teenager, I used to be a Communist. I was a member of SDS. If you were to the left of me, you probably have a criminal record, e.g. were one of the Weathermen. I never went that far, I admit.
"Child"? Let's hear how old you are, babycakes. This should be good. I suspect that dating you would make me feel like a cradle-robber.
So don't fuck with me. Republicans were never a liberal party. Your teachers should be fired.
Of course they were. You have no idea what you're talking about. Let's move away from Lincoln and the slavery issue and consider America's first great progressive president in the modern sense, Theodore Roosevelt. (You do know that he was a Republican, right?)
He was an aggressive trust-buster and opponent of corporate power.
In 1902, he resolved the United Mine Workers strike in favor of the workers and got them more pay for fewer hours.
He passed laws regulating food quality and safety, and created the Food and Drug Administration.
On all of these economic issues, Roosevelt was as progressive as any of the progressive Democrats that followed him, such as Wilson and TR's cousin Franklin. On the issues of civil rights and racial equality, he was, like all Republicans, to the LEFT of the Democrats. And compared to the conservative Democrats who preceded him, such as Grover Cleveland, Roosevelt was a flaming leftie.
All of these things were very much in the Republican tradition. Liberal Republicans were very much a part of the party up until -- well, probably up until about the earliest year you can remember.
You're right that the columnist was making a commentary on "American exceptionalism", not bashing the Republicans over slavery. He/she (I didn't catch the name of the writer) wasn't arguing against the idea that all men are created equal. In fact, arguing in favor of "American exceptionalism" requires arguing against the equality of the brotherhood of man.
What I was shocked and I really mean this as a Canadian/American who can tell you "jump up" and love every minute of my diverse family was to find out there is this theology of slave descendant versus island versus continent black being taught in America.
This chills me to the bone. And Island and Continent aren't worth a piece of shit. Apparently according to the Professors.
I find this deeply disturbing. Let alone one of Obama's professors spouts this garbage (the one who was arrested) at a major university.
If we were judged by everything that was said by a professor we had in college, good grief...
SDS lol I used to regularly attend meetings with the most lovely woman called Angie. I'm a real deal. I lived and rocked in South Cali at the time.
Bernie and Billie pushed it too far.
Never mind, I'll do it:
"The Republican party in 1861 was a coalition of disparate elements. Formed only 7 years earlier, it contained men who had been Whigs, Anti-Slavery Democrats, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, and Abolitionists. By the outbreak of the war, these fragments had coalesced into 3 basic factions: conservatives, moderates, and radicals. President Abraham Lincoln's task was to mold these factions into a government that could win the war without destroying the South politically and economically.
The most aggressive and, eventually, most influential of the three was the Radical Republican faction. All Republicans were against slavery, but this group was the most "radical", in its opposition to the "peculiar institution." While conservatives favored gradual emancipation combined with colonization of Freedmen, and while moderates favored emancipation but with reservations, Radicals favored immediate eradication of an institution they viewed as iniquitous, and saw the war as a crusade for "Abolition."
Rightwinger again is caught lying blatantly about things that can easily be looked up.
The Republicans And The Civil War
SDS lol I used to regularly attend meetings with the most lovely woman called Angie. I'm a real deal. I lived and rocked in South Cali at the time.
Sounds like you and I are about the same age, then, and have similar ancient histories.
Bernie and Billie pushed it too far.
Oh, I completely agree! The idea that blowing shit up was a good way to end the Vietnam War was just whacked. And yes, pampered rich white kids pretty much describes them.
Anyway, sounds like we've both moved to the right a bit since those days, but you seem to have taken it further.
