Northern vs Southern Democrats on Slavery

[bigrebnc1775]

History can be ugly, and it can be doubly so for people in denial

Pull your racist head out of obama's ass long enough to see that slavery wasn't the cause for most southern states for leaving the union. North Careolina just happens to be one of those states./

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I got my view of southern white conservatives by a white man born and raised in SC. He was an academic and a historian, with credentials on SC history and the history of the Catholic Church with Bishop Lynch (no shit, real name) supporting the Confederacy and slavery. Bishop Lynch was a Confederate Ambassador to Europe...

Supporting Slavery, not States rights.

fool you know so little

oh wow you know one supposed southerner that makes you know the truth?
You dumb son of a bitch South Carolina is but one southern states,
Care to defend your position against North Carolina secession and the cause for North Carolina seceding?

SC Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

one reason

Again South Carolina is but one state

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We think the wingnut dost protest too much

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -708 reputation points from bigrebnc1775.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
racist bitch

Regards,
bigrebnc1775

Note: This is an automated message.

New reputation!
Hi, you have received 1417 reputation points from bigrebnc1775.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
racist bitch

Regards,
bigrebnc1775

Note: This is an automated message.

09-24-2012 New reputation!
06:58 AM bigrebnc1775


09-24-2012 New reputation!
06:57 AM bigrebnc1775

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We think the wingnut dost protest too much

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -708 reputation points from bigrebnc1775.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
racist bitch

Regards,
bigrebnc1775

Note: This is an automated message.

New reputation!
Hi, you have received 1417 reputation points from bigrebnc1775.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
racist bitch

Regards,
bigrebnc1775

Note: This is an automated message.

09-24-2012 New reputation!
06:58 AM bigrebnc1775


09-24-2012 New reputation!
06:57 AM bigrebnc1775

I think you the wing nut lied way too much

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We think the wingnut dost protest too much

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -708 reputation points from bigrebnc1775.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
racist bitch

Regards,
bigrebnc1775

Note: This is an automated message.

New reputation!
Hi, you have received 1417 reputation points from bigrebnc1775.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
racist bitch

Regards,
bigrebnc1775

Note: This is an automated message.

09-24-2012 New reputation!
06:58 AM bigrebnc1775


09-24-2012 New reputation!
06:57 AM bigrebnc1775

I think you the wing nut lied way too much

just curious. what happened?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[Uncensored2008]

What about it?

Northern Democrats who were against slavery? Southerners were the Democrats who wanted slavery.

Northern Democrats fought for a twisted view of states rights. Southern Democrats fought for the right to keep slavery legal and to keep slavery in new territories -- expand slavery

where am I wrong?

Pretty much everywhere.

The issue was admittance of new slave states, not the abolition of slavery. The south feared that the balance of power would be upset by adding a host of new free states.

What you post is an ignorant revision of history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I got my view of southern white conservatives by a white man born and raised in SC.

It appears more likely that you got your views by having your head shoved up your ass.

He was an academic and a historian, with credentials on SC history and the history of the Catholic Church with Bishop Lynch (no shit, real name) supporting the Confederacy and slavery. Bishop Lynch was a Confederate Ambassador to Europe...

Yet you're an ignorant buffoon without any knowledge of history...

Supporting Slavery, not States rights.

fool you know so little

Dante, did you finish second grade, or did you quit to "work the streets?"

 

[Staidhup]

Slavery was but one of the three points of the trident that served as the catalyst launching the country into Civil War. You had agrarian south, south east, and West beholding to the economic power of the northern bankers / manufacturers, and issue of states sovereign rights versus the centralized government controlled by northeastern special interests. The distinction between southern Democrats and northern Democrats in the 1860's was simply one was willing to make a stand and die for preservation and one that would simply skirt the issue in the name of harmony.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Slavery was but one of the three points of the trident that served as the catalyst launching the country into Civil War. You had agrarian south, south east, and West beholding to the economic power of the northern bankers / manufacturers, and issue of states sovereign rights versus the centralized government controlled by northeastern special interests. The distinction between southern Democrats and northern Democrats in the 1860's was simply one was willing to make a stand and die for preservation and one that would simply skirt the issue in the name of harmony.

You make an excellent point. Despite revisionism and stupidity, the Republican party of Lincoln was one that promoted industrialists and investors, which as you point out were in the North and had an economic stake in in the wage labor market. The Democrats promoted slavery in conjunction with an agrarian model and the pseudo feudalism that dominated the party.

The Republicans haven't changed very much, they are still the party of industrialists and free marketeers. The democrats remain paternalistic and authoritarian.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wilmot Proviso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What about it?

Northern Democrats who were against slavery? Southerners were the Democrats who wanted slavery.

Northern Democrats fought for a twisted view of states rights. Southern Democrats fought for the right to keep slavery legal and to keep slavery in new territories -- expand slavery

where am I wrong?

Pretty much everywhere.

The issue was admittance of new slave states, not the abolition of slavery. The south feared that the balance of power would be upset by adding a host of new free states.

What you post is an ignorant revision of history.

Wilmot Proviso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow! Talk about spin and revisionist history. Slavery in the territories. Free states? States where slavery would be banned? If that ain't the road to the abolition of slavery...

Bleeding Kansas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


John Brown and other ABOLITIONISTS were in the forefront of battling the OWNING of slaves in the new territories.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Slavery was but one of the three points of the trident that served as the catalyst launching the country into Civil War. You had agrarian south, south east, and West beholding to the economic power of the northern bankers / manufacturers, and issue of states sovereign rights versus the centralized government controlled by northeastern special interests. The distinction between southern Democrats and northern Democrats in the 1860's was simply one was willing to make a stand and die for preservation and one that would simply skirt the issue in the name of harmony.

Nope.

The Southern Slave Holders wanted slavery in the territories. Most Northern Democrats were battling for teh states and territories to decide for themselves. Some of these N. Democrats were against slavery, but considered states rights to be important.

later, the racist white Southern crackers ended up hijacking the states rights argument to justify the war.

South Carolina was adamant -- the right to own slaves was their primary cause for starting the Civil War.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Slavery was but one of the three points of the trident that served as the catalyst launching the country into Civil War. You had agrarian south, south east, and West beholding to the economic power of the northern bankers / manufacturers, and issue of states sovereign rights versus the centralized government controlled by northeastern special interests. The distinction between southern Democrats and northern Democrats in the 1860's was simply one was willing to make a stand and die for preservation and one that would simply skirt the issue in the name of harmony.

You make an excellent point. Despite revisionism and stupidity, the Republican party of Lincoln was one that promoted industrialists and investors, which as you point out were in the North and had an economic stake in in the wage labor market. The Democrats promoted slavery in conjunction with an agrarian model and the pseudo feudalism that dominated the party.

The Republicans haven't changed very much, they are still the party of industrialists and free marketeers. The democrats remain paternalistic and authoritarian.

The Southern White Conservative Democrats left the DNC into the open arms of the GOP. The Southern Strategy of the GOP kept White Southerners in power on a national level.

The Republican party of Lincoln ended up disappearing when Reagan helped chase out the Northern Lincoln/Rockefeller Liberals out of the GOP

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

New reputation!
Hi, you have received -521 reputation points from Uncensored2008.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
You never learn, retard. Don\'t shit on my carpets.

Regards,
Uncensored2008

Note: This is an automated message.

Oh my. It must be raining pussies and dicks

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Southern White Conservative Democrats left the DNC into the open arms of the GOP. The Southern Strategy of the GOP kept White Southerners in power on a national level.

The Republican party of Lincoln ended up disappearing when Reagan helped chase out the Northern Lincoln/Rockefeller Liberals out of the GOP

I understand your desperation to redefine the democrats from the paternalistic overseers who owned, yet cared for their keep; to some sort of "free market" champions who just happened to own slaves and oppose market forces. But you do realize that anyone with a modicum of intellect recognizes you as abysmally stupid and devoid of any historical perspective, right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh my. It must be raining pussies and dicks

If you neg me, you stupid little fuck, I'll hit you right back.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh my. It must be raining pussies and dicks

If you neg me, you stupid little fuck, I'll hit you right back.

He negs me then post the neg I gave him back. As if he has done nothing.

 

[blimpo]

Here is the official way they stack up-

Republicans: anti-slavery
Radical Republicans: extremists against slavery

Democrats: not pro-slavery, but felt it was a necessary evil that would soon fade
Southern Democrats: very pro-slavery, thought it should be everywhere, especially in new territories and new states.

Is that your official stance?

It's simple, yes.

It covers each group in explanations most can understand.

It is generally recognized as a truthful explanation.

It is all time allows me to post.

I will add- Since most in the Southerners didn't own slaves, rich influencial slave owners worked hard to convince the non-slave-owning population that the main problem was the feds acting as bullies and promoted the states' rights issue as the reason conflict was needed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here is the official way they stack up-

Republicans: anti-slavery
Radical Republicans: extremists against slavery

Democrats: not pro-slavery, but felt it was a necessary evil that would soon fade
Southern Democrats: very pro-slavery, thought it should be everywhere, especially in new territories and new states.

Is that your official stance?

It's simple, yes.

It covers each group in explanations most can understand.

It is generally recognized as a truthful explanation.

It is all time allows me to post.

I will add- Since most in the Southerners didn't own slaves, rich influencial slave owners worked hard to convince the non-slave-owning population that the main problem was the feds acting as bullies and promoted the states' rights issue as the reason conflict was needed.

You are so fucking far off it's laughable.