Pro-slavery party

[whitehall]

It doesn't matter what political party was in place during the 200 years of slavery in the New World. The democrat party was the party of racism and segregation up until the 60's and 70's and there are still remnants of bigotry and racism left over. Slavery was outlawed a hundred and fifty years ago in the U.S. but Arabs and African emerging nations still sell little girls into slavery today so what's the point?

 

[regent]

The question will test your knowledge of American history.

If you get this question wrong, then perhaps it would be wise to hit the library and educate yourself.

Here's a hint. It's the party who had a member introduce a bill in congress to reinstate slavery in the USA less than 3 years ago.

Can I buy another clue and ask for a link? thanks.

Here's another clue:

The pro-slavery party is also the party that forced thousands of Japanese-Americans into concentration camps via executive order.

So why did so many Japanese-Americans vote for the Democratic party after the war?
Why was the first Senator from the new state of Hawaii and former member of the Japanese-American 442 RCT a Democrat?

 

[RWNJ]

The question will test your knowledge of American history.

If you get this question wrong, then perhaps it would be wise to hit the library and educate yourself.

Here's a hint. It's the party who had a member introduce a bill in congress to reinstate slavery in the USA less than 3 years ago.

It is a matter of public record, and impossible to dispute, that liberal democrats have a habit of voting against civil rights legislation. They also created the KKK. I think it's obvious who the racists are.

 

[S.J.]

We've been over this countless times and it's been proven with documentation and undisputed historical facts that the Democratic Party is and always has been the party of slavery. The debate is over.

 

[Picaro]

The question will test your knowledge of American history.

If you get this question wrong, then perhaps it would be wise to hit the library and educate yourself..

You really should take your own advice. Both Parties had 'pro-slavery' factions, and the northern Democrats split on the issue. In fact, without northern Democratic support, Lincoln's military dictatorship and suspension of the Constitution couldn't have been launched and his illegal war would never have got off the ground, even with his private army of 75,000 troops, paid for with Federal tax money.

Claiming to be 'anti-slavery' is also problematic, since most of the 'anti-slavery' types were more of the 'ship them all back to Africa' types, including Lincoln, and what they were supporting was a policy of no blacks allowed at all in the new territories, i.e. only white settlers allowed; stronger Black Codes were passed in most mid-western states between 1853 and 1857, including Illinois, also supported by Lincoln before he became President, which made it impossible for a black person to make a legal living there.

See also Lincoln's military governors of the Union occupied states during and after the war, where Lincoln and his successor backed his governors' martial laws ordering 'freed' slaves to remain on their plantations and work for 'pay' also dictated by the military governors, a whopping $3 a month, with the added bonus of facing arrest and forced labor as a criminal if caught off their plantations without the express written permission of their new 'employer'. 'Anti-slavery' was a distinction without a difference for most northerners, especially Lincoln. The term 'anti-slavery' is highly misleading, as anybody who has actually hit the libraries and educated themselves.

They can also find a couple of books out there on the 1864 elections and the Republican candidates own speeches and platforms if they have some delusion anything changed during or after the war. Some 300,000-400,000 'freed' slaves died in 'property camps', to keep them from fleeing north as well, so let's not pretend there was much in the way of any real 'anti-slavery' sentiment, just even worse racism, of the 'white nationalist' type of ethnic cleansing.

Trying to pretend the Republicans have some sort of claim to moral superiority over Democrats is just ridiculous nonsense, just a s ridiculous as claiming northerners were on some kind of moral crusade to 'end slavery' and 'end racism n stuff'. Utter drivel.

 

[Muhammed]

RWs are so simple minded.

It wasn't "Democrats". It was ultra-conservatives and at that time, they were in the Democrat party.

The real question is, if Democrats can learn, grow, evolve and change, why can't Republicans?

FDR instituted slavery in America.

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

 

[Indeependent]

RWs are so simple minded.

It wasn't "Democrats". It was ultra-conservatives and at that time, they were in the Democrat party.

The real question is, if Democrats can learn, grow, evolve and change, why can't Republicans?

FDR instituted slavery in America.

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

You are for Hitler's brand of National Socialism?

 

[regent]

Would Lincoln have been elected If the Democratic had not been split over the slavery issue?

 

[Muhammed]

The question will test your knowledge of American history.

If you get this question wrong, then perhaps it would be wise to hit the library and educate yourself..

You really should take your own advice. Both Parties had 'pro-slavery' factions, and the northern Democrats split on the issue. In fact, without northern Democratic support, Lincoln's military dictatorship and suspension of the Constitution couldn't have been launched and his illegal war would never have got off the ground, even with his private army of 75,000 troops, paid for with Federal tax money.

Claiming to be 'anti-slavery' is also problematic, since most of the 'anti-slavery' types were more of the 'ship them all back to Africa' types, including Lincoln, and what they were supporting was a policy of no blacks allowed at all in the new territories, i.e. only white settlers allowed; stronger Black Codes were passed in most mid-western states between 1853 and 1857, including Illinois, also supported by Lincoln before he became President, which made it impossible for a black person to make a legal living there.

See also Lincoln's military governors of the Union occupied states during and after the war, where Lincoln and his successor backed his governors' martial laws ordering 'freed' slaves to remain on their plantations and work for 'pay' also dictated by the military governors, a whopping $3 a month, with the added bonus of facing arrest and forced labor as a criminal if caught off their plantations without the express written permission of their new 'employer'. 'Anti-slavery' was a distinction without a difference for most northerners, especially Lincoln. The term 'anti-slavery' is highly misleading, as anybody who has actually hit the libraries and educated themselves.

They can also find a couple of books out there on the 1864 elections and the Republican candidates own speeches and platforms if they have some delusion anything changed during or after the war. Some 300,000-400,000 'freed' slaves died in 'property camps', to keep them from fleeing north as well, so let's not pretend there was much in the way of any real 'anti-slavery' sentiment, just even worse racism, of the 'white nationalist' type of ethnic cleansing.

Trying to pretend the Republicans have some sort of claim to moral superiority over Democrats is just ridiculous nonsense, just a s ridiculous as claiming northerners were on some kind of moral crusade to 'end slavery' and 'end racism n stuff'. Utter drivel.

Although Lincoln ordered the emancipation of millions of slaves, at the same time the union army also enslaved about 40,000 people. So the Republican partys official policy on slavery was a bit schizophrenic during the Civil War years.

But of course the Republicans learned their lesson after riots protesting the enrollment act and the morale problems that conscription caused the army. They never supported slavery again, unlike the Democratic Party.

As I noted earlier, a Democrat introduced legislation to implement slavery less than 3 years ago.

 

[Picaro]

Would Lincoln have been elected If the Democratic had not been split over the slavery issue?

Absolutely not; the vote even split in the South, though not by as much of a margin, of course. The treatment of 'free' white labor in the South was just about the same as they were treated in the North; there are thousands of skeletons of Irish and German laborers buried in the river levees along the Mississippi and New Orleans, slaves being considered too valuable to be used for such labor in building them. They were just left where they dropped and died, and covered over by the construction. In they North, striking labor was merely shot down, or replaced by immigrant labor during the war, by such employers as Carnegie and the rest; the 'Civil War' increased the number of millionaires ten fold, almost entirely from crony capitalism and military contract corruption, from which many northern Democrats also benefited from. Their wealthy backers in their respective northern states had just as much to gain from the war as their Republican counterparts did.

There was no 'Great Cause' involved in that war.

 

[Picaro]

The question will test your knowledge of American history.

If you get this question wrong, then perhaps it would be wise to hit the library and educate yourself..

You really should take your own advice. Both Parties had 'pro-slavery' factions, and the northern Democrats split on the issue. In fact, without northern Democratic support, Lincoln's military dictatorship and suspension of the Constitution couldn't have been launched and his illegal war would never have got off the ground, even with his private army of 75,000 troops, paid for with Federal tax money.

Claiming to be 'anti-slavery' is also problematic, since most of the 'anti-slavery' types were more of the 'ship them all back to Africa' types, including Lincoln, and what they were supporting was a policy of no blacks allowed at all in the new territories, i.e. only white settlers allowed; stronger Black Codes were passed in most mid-western states between 1853 and 1857, including Illinois, also supported by Lincoln before he became President, which made it impossible for a black person to make a legal living there.

See also Lincoln's military governors of the Union occupied states during and after the war, where Lincoln and his successor backed his governors' martial laws ordering 'freed' slaves to remain on their plantations and work for 'pay' also dictated by the military governors, a whopping $3 a month, with the added bonus of facing arrest and forced labor as a criminal if caught off their plantations without the express written permission of their new 'employer'. 'Anti-slavery' was a distinction without a difference for most northerners, especially Lincoln. The term 'anti-slavery' is highly misleading, as anybody who has actually hit the libraries and educated themselves.

They can also find a couple of books out there on the 1864 elections and the Republican candidates own speeches and platforms if they have some delusion anything changed during or after the war. Some 300,000-400,000 'freed' slaves died in 'property camps', to keep them from fleeing north as well, so let's not pretend there was much in the way of any real 'anti-slavery' sentiment, just even worse racism, of the 'white nationalist' type of ethnic cleansing.

Trying to pretend the Republicans have some sort of claim to moral superiority over Democrats is just ridiculous nonsense, just a s ridiculous as claiming northerners were on some kind of moral crusade to 'end slavery' and 'end racism n stuff'. Utter drivel.

Although Lincoln ordered the emancipation of millions of slaves, at the same time the union army also enslaved about 40,000 people. So the Republican partys official policy on slavery was a bit schizophrenic during the Civil War years.

But of course the Republicans learned their lesson after riots protesting the enrollment act and the morale problems that conscription caused the army. They never supported slavery again, unlike the Democratic Party.

As I noted earlier, a Democrat introduced legislation to implement slavery less than 3 years ago.

Spare me the astro-turf spin; it's just apologetic bullshit.

 

[Muhammed]

The question will test your knowledge of American history.

If you get this question wrong, then perhaps it would be wise to hit the library and educate yourself..

You really should take your own advice. Both Parties had 'pro-slavery' factions, and the northern Democrats split on the issue. In fact, without northern Democratic support, Lincoln's military dictatorship and suspension of the Constitution couldn't have been launched and his illegal war would never have got off the ground, even with his private army of 75,000 troops, paid for with Federal tax money.

Claiming to be 'anti-slavery' is also problematic, since most of the 'anti-slavery' types were more of the 'ship them all back to Africa' types, including Lincoln, and what they were supporting was a policy of no blacks allowed at all in the new territories, i.e. only white settlers allowed; stronger Black Codes were passed in most mid-western states between 1853 and 1857, including Illinois, also supported by Lincoln before he became President, which made it impossible for a black person to make a legal living there.

See also Lincoln's military governors of the Union occupied states during and after the war, where Lincoln and his successor backed his governors' martial laws ordering 'freed' slaves to remain on their plantations and work for 'pay' also dictated by the military governors, a whopping $3 a month, with the added bonus of facing arrest and forced labor as a criminal if caught off their plantations without the express written permission of their new 'employer'. 'Anti-slavery' was a distinction without a difference for most northerners, especially Lincoln. The term 'anti-slavery' is highly misleading, as anybody who has actually hit the libraries and educated themselves.

They can also find a couple of books out there on the 1864 elections and the Republican candidates own speeches and platforms if they have some delusion anything changed during or after the war. Some 300,000-400,000 'freed' slaves died in 'property camps', to keep them from fleeing north as well, so let's not pretend there was much in the way of any real 'anti-slavery' sentiment, just even worse racism, of the 'white nationalist' type of ethnic cleansing.

Trying to pretend the Republicans have some sort of claim to moral superiority over Democrats is just ridiculous nonsense, just a s ridiculous as claiming northerners were on some kind of moral crusade to 'end slavery' and 'end racism n stuff'. Utter drivel.

Although Lincoln ordered the emancipation of millions of slaves, at the same time the union army also enslaved about 40,000 people. So the Republican partys official policy on slavery was a bit schizophrenic during the Civil War years.

But of course the Republicans learned their lesson after riots protesting the enrollment act and the morale problems that conscription caused the army. They never supported slavery again, unlike the Democratic Party.

As I noted earlier, a Democrat introduced legislation to implement slavery less than 3 years ago.

Spare me the astro-turf spin; it's just apologetic bullshit.

You've heard no apologetics from me in this thread. What I've taught you about in this thread is the truthful American history. Period.

 

[PK1]

RWs are so simple minded.

It wasn't "Democrats". It was ultra-conservatives and at that time, they were in the Democrat party.

The real question is, if Democrats can learn, grow, evolve and change, why can't Republicans?

FDR instituted slavery in America.

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

---
Did the Republicans protest that??
.

 

[Muhammed]

RWs are so simple minded.

It wasn't "Democrats". It was ultra-conservatives and at that time, they were in the Democrat party.

The real question is, if Democrats can learn, grow, evolve and change, why can't Republicans?

FDR instituted slavery in America.

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

---
Did the Republicans protest that??
.

Yes, they overwhelmingly voted against conscription.

 

[PK1]

RWs are so simple minded.

It wasn't "Democrats". It was ultra-conservatives and at that time, they were in the Democrat party.

The real question is, if Democrats can learn, grow, evolve and change, why can't Republicans?

FDR instituted slavery in America.

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

---
Did the Republicans protest that??
.

Yes, they overwhelmingly voted against conscription.

---
So their relatives with good jobs (vs poor folks) would not have to serve their country?
.

 

[Muhammed]

FDR instituted slavery in America.

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

---
Did the Republicans protest that??
.

Yes, they overwhelmingly voted against conscription.

---
So their relatives with good jobs (vs poor folks) would not have to serve their country?
.

That's a bizarre interpretation. How many leaps of logic did you use to come to that conclusion?

 

[Muhammed]

RWs are so simple minded.

It wasn't "Democrats". It was ultra-conservatives and at that time, they were in the Democrat party.

The real question is, if Democrats can learn, grow, evolve and change, why can't Republicans?

FDR instituted slavery in America.

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

I'm a semi-retired union cement mason. I have a 1 year old baby and my wife is a full-time medical school student, so I'm mostly a stay at home dad these days. But I occasionally do some concrete contracting where I need to hire some help.

I only hire union cement masons. Generally, if a mason is skilled and knows what they're doing they'll be a member of the Cement Masons & Plasterers Union.

They get paid union scale, of course.

 

[PK1]

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

---
Did the Republicans protest that??
.

Yes, they overwhelmingly voted against conscription.

---
So their relatives with good jobs (vs poor folks) would not have to serve their country?
.

That's a bizarre interpretation. How many leaps of logic did you use to come to that conclusion?

---
Good eye!
Yes, i used at least 2 "leaps" of logic.
1- Normally, young adults don't like the idea of playing soldier on the front lines with real bullets & explosives around them;
2- The wealthier citizens would not serve in the military on the front lines if they did not have to;
3- If the wealthier citizens were motivated to serve, they would have greater likelihood to NOT serve on the front lines;
4- The poorer unemployed adults would more likely join the military and have to serve on the front lines.

Yes, in a draft situation, many richer guys will also evade the front lines, but not as many, and there would be slightly more equality.
.

 

[Muhammed]

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

---
Did the Republicans protest that??
.

Yes, they overwhelmingly voted against conscription.

---
So their relatives with good jobs (vs poor folks) would not have to serve their country?
.

That's a bizarre interpretation. How many leaps of logic did you use to come to that conclusion?

---
Good eye!
Yes, i used at least 2 "leaps" of logic.
1- Normally, young adults don't like the idea of playing soldier on the front lines with real bullets & explosives around them;
2- The wealthier citizens would not serve in the military on the front lines if they did not have to;
3- If the wealthier citizens were motivated to serve, they would have greater likelihood to NOT serve on the front lines;
4- The poorer unemployed adults would more likely join the military and have to serve on the front lines.

Yes, in a draft situation, many richer guys will also evade the front lines, but not as many, and there would be slightly more equality.
.

The military is not the only option for poor people. Nor is it exclusive to them. It is an option that is equally available to people of all economic backgrounds.

Your logic fails.

You are simply spewing a typical Democrat slavery apologist excuse.

But really the topic of this thread isn't to argue whether slavery is good or bad. It is to point out which major political party is known as being pro-slavery.

Arguments for or against slavery are a bit off-topic.

 

[RWNJ]

RWs are so simple minded.

It wasn't "Democrats". It was ultra-conservatives and at that time, they were in the Democrat party.

The real question is, if Democrats can learn, grow, evolve and change, why can't Republicans?

FDR instituted slavery in America.

By feeding starving people.
The bastard.
I presume you own a business that pays a fair wage and your employees don't need to be subsidized by Municipal, State or Federal programs.
Pleas correct me if I'm incorrect.

Actually he conscripted people by the thousands. Conscription is a particularly atrocious form of slavery. Really the most abhorrent form of slavery.

FDR took men against their will and sent them overseas where they were cut to pieces by German and Japanese machine guns and artillery.

That's just plain fucking evil.

If you live in a country, yet refuse to defend it, what does that say about you? Everyone has a DUTY to defend their country. If you don't like it, go live somewhere else.