I'll show it again now, >> I said it then. I say it now >> "DEMOCRATS in the south preserved that slavery for many decades after that."Then it's curious that you had to cut your own post out of the quote so it wouldn't show what I was responding to.
Roll tape.
And DEMOCRATS in the south preserved that slavery for many decades after that.The South has slaves for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed
That is, indeed, the same slop you posted before that already got shellacked. What are you, a masochist?
Slavery, for those of you who never went to school, was going on in both the north and the south. In fact the only state then extant which never had slavery was Vermont. So it didn't need to "be preserved" --- IT HAD ALREADY EXISTED since 1526, more than three hundred years before the Democratic Party was formed and more than 250 years before any parties were formed at all, BECAUSE, AGAIN --- no slave owner/trader has ever needed a political party to engage in it; it wasn't a political process.
Slavery didn't need action taken to be "preserved"; it needed action to be abolished.
After Martin van Buren (who was from New York and not an active slaveowner) organized the Democratic Party there were seven more Presidents before Lincoln. Of those seven, four were from the South and all four were slaveowners. Of those four one was a Democrat and three were Whigs. One was a Democrat. Of the three from the North, two were Democrats and none were slaveowners.
err, the fact that something "existed" is not evidence that it did not "need to be preserved".
Actually it is. You don't need to "renew" something that's already been going on for centuries, LONG before you even had a country or a government, like a friggin' driver's licence.
Holy SHIT that was a mindless post. You should get new writers. Fucking post wasn't addressed to you in the first place there white knight.
depends on the situation. you can certainly have an institution that has lasted a long time, decline and need it to be "Renewed".
your words, you are stringing them together in sentences that look like supporting arguments.
but the shit you are claiming, just isn't true. in fact, it's completely based on not knowing the meaning of simple english words.