CDZ Who Was The First Party To Elect Blacks To Office?

[RetiredGySgt]

The Republicans in the 1860's and 70's were not liberals. they were Conservatives if one goes by today's definitions. Or perhaps you can provide actual evidence of a liberal policy by them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

RGS, we go by the definitions and terms of the times.

Yes, in those days, the Pubs were liberals compared to the much further right Democrats, the conservatives.

Look up "present-ism".

 

[Asclepias]

I get the feeling you are trying to pretend those Republicans are the same as todays Republicans. Everyone knows those Republicans were liberals so lets make sure that is noted in your thread.

I think you are trying to skew DOCUMENTED RECORDED HISTORICAL FACT.
IF you could show those men were NOT black you would have some degree of argument. IF you could show those men were NOT Republican you would have some degree of argument.

BUT you have NOT nor can you because it IS documented recorded historical fact. Here are a few more for you.


Clean debate to me means honest debate based of FACTS not hopes or maybes. THESE are the facts.

I dont know how you somehow got that I believed these guys were not Black. I most likely know way more about than you do being Black myself.

Most blacks don't you'd be an exception

Most Black people know about this. I dont understand why you would think I am an exception?

Umm no they don't. it's not taught in public school much either. They have no concept of the Republican party as a whole. Maybe people like you know, as far as inner city blacks? no they don't know

I'm from the inner city.Pretty much every Black person I know thinks this is old hat.

 

[Asclepias]

I get the feeling you are trying to pretend those Republicans are the same as todays Republicans. Everyone knows those Republicans were liberals so lets make sure that is noted in your thread.

To more clearly point out the falsehood of your party switching argument is rather easy. Just because the states went red does NOT mean the racists became Republican. On the contrary it shows Republicans ARE beating racists democrats state by state and THAT is why they are turning color.

IF your argument were even CLOSE to true we would still be seeing cross burning's or dogs and fire hose's on black people. Those things have ended BECAUSE those states are turning red NOT despite those states turning red. Here is some ZO to cover the fine points.


The states turning red is a natural thing as those states move toward MORE freedom for the person no matter the color and to argue otherwise SUGGEST that those states AND people are unable to see the racist past of the party that brought the very destruction/enslavement AND killing of it's citizens.

Your first paragraph is a perfect example of faulty logic. The southern strategy has already been admitted to by the GOP so that pretty much kills your argument.

Your logic continues in the second paragraph with a wild assumption that we would be seeing more cross burnings, dogs , and hoses. We dont see that for two reasons. Its against the law and white racists are afraid of Blacks that are not going to turn the other check while this occurs. If they thought there were no consequences to their actions they would be doing it as we speak.

The states turning red was an orchestrated thing. which you can see if you have any education in regards to the history of politics in the south. There is nothing natural about this being orchestrated.

Your argument still fails and lacks logic.
It WAS illegal to kill a man back then.
It WAS illegal to bomb a church back then.
It was illegal to burn a home back then.

When republicans took power the law was applied EQUAL.
It was the EQUAL application of the law that changed practice AND thinking.
Those states turned red BECAUSE of the equal application of LAW.

What group started the NAACP? Republicans!
What group founded Morehouse Colledge? Republicans!
What group started the "Freedman" program? Republicans!

There is NO hush hush coven of racists in the Republican party. What there IS is fewer southern racist democrats.
Excuse the spelling please. I just woke up.

Youre argument failed again. It was legal to kill Black people. Even when it became illegal no Black people were allowed on the juries and if a inbred cave chimp somehow managed to get charged for killing a Black person they walked.

 

[DarkFury]

I get the feeling you are trying to pretend those Republicans are the same as todays Republicans. Everyone knows those Republicans were liberals so lets make sure that is noted in your thread.

To more clearly point out the falsehood of your party switching argument is rather easy. Just because the states went red does NOT mean the racists became Republican. On the contrary it shows Republicans ARE beating racists democrats state by state and THAT is why they are turning color.

IF your argument were even CLOSE to true we would still be seeing cross burning's or dogs and fire hose's on black people. Those things have ended BECAUSE those states are turning red NOT despite those states turning red. Here is some ZO to cover the fine points.


The states turning red is a natural thing as those states move toward MORE freedom for the person no matter the color and to argue otherwise SUGGEST that those states AND people are unable to see the racist past of the party that brought the very destruction/enslavement AND killing of it's citizens.

Your first paragraph is a perfect example of faulty logic. The southern strategy has already been admitted to by the GOP so that pretty much kills your argument.

Your logic continues in the second paragraph with a wild assumption that we would be seeing more cross burnings, dogs , and hoses. We dont see that for two reasons. Its against the law and white racists are afraid of Blacks that are not going to turn the other check while this occurs. If they thought there were no consequences to their actions they would be doing it as we speak.

The states turning red was an orchestrated thing. which you can see if you have any education in regards to the history of politics in the south. There is nothing natural about this being orchestrated.

Your argument still fails and lacks logic.
It WAS illegal to kill a man back then.
It WAS illegal to bomb a church back then.
It was illegal to burn a home back then.

When republicans took power the law was applied EQUAL.
It was the EQUAL application of the law that changed practice AND thinking.
Those states turned red BECAUSE of the equal application of LAW.

What group started the NAACP? Republicans!
What group founded Morehouse Colledge? Republicans!
What group started the "Freedman" program? Republicans!

There is NO hush hush coven of racists in the Republican party. What there IS is fewer southern racist democrats.
Excuse the spelling please. I just woke up.

Youre argument failed again. It was legal to kill Black people. Even when it became illegal no Black people were allowed on the juries and if a inbred cave chimp somehow managed to get charged for killing a Black person they walked.

There are so many layers of wrong in your argument let's start with the most blatant one. It WAS ILLEGAL to kill ANOTHER human being.

Democrats had ALREADY decreed a black man as 3/5ths human.
The republicans passed the needed amendments to make a black man a FULL human being thus the laws were then Equal and just to ALL.

THAT if ANYTHING is MORE proof that republicans the "radicals" stood behind their word of not only justice/law and equality of life liberty and justice for ALL.

Question.. What party FOUGHT that amendment?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS, we go by the definitions and terms of the times.

Yes, in those days, the Pubs were liberals compared to the much further right Democrats, the conservatives.

Look up "present-ism".

You and others are attempting to COMPARE the Republican from then with Republicans now. They were very much of a similar political bent. Conservative. You don't get to claim that Republicans from back then were liberals like today when they were actually conservatives.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

 

[DarkFury]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

They did NOT subsidize public railroads they JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors to build railroads.

"crushing seceding states".....What part of liberal is crushing? Mandating? Regulating? THEY mandated and regulated EQUAL rights.

"homestead grants".....THAT goes back to the king so NO new policy there other then to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

Once again you will not get away with comparing those Republicans to modern day Democrats. The fact is that Republicans were conservative just not as conservative as Democrats back then. As for freeing the slaves were not you one of those that pointed out the party did not intend to free them in the civil war and only did so to try and prevent Great Britain and France from siding with the Confederacy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

They did NOT subsidize public railroads they JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors to build railroads.

"crushing seceding states".....What part of liberal is crushing? Mandating? Regulating? THEY mandated and regulated EQUAL rights.

"homestead grants".....THAT goes back to the king so NO new policy there other then to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

"JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors", if you are right, is fascism, which you guys keep insisting is liberal. "crushing seceding states" is big business liberal stuff, bubs. The homestead laws were liberal efforts to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

Once again you will not get away with comparing those Republicans to modern day Democrats. The fact is that Republicans were conservative just not as conservative as Democrats back then. As for freeing the slaves were not you one of those that pointed out the party did not intend to free them in the civil war and only did so to try and prevent Great Britain and France from siding with the Confederacy?

You are not able to get around history and terms and present-ism, RGS.

In 1860: the Republicans were big government and to the left of the Democrats who were far more conservative than the Republicans of the day, You are taking about "France and England", not me. Freeing the slaves and crushing the south were Big Government liberal activities for the day, where as the Democratic South was trying to conserve the status quo.

You try any of your crap, RGS, in any history class taught by professionals, and you will fail miserably.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

They did NOT subsidize public railroads they JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors to build railroads.

"crushing seceding states".....What part of liberal is crushing? Mandating? Regulating? THEY mandated and regulated EQUAL rights.

"homestead grants".....THAT goes back to the king so NO new policy there other then to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

"JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors", if you are right, is fascism, which you guys keep insisting is liberal. "crushing seceding states" is big business liberal stuff, bubs. The homestead laws were liberal efforts to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

No the homestead act was a way to get non slave holders into territories to ensure the new State did not go slave State. The Civil war was supported by democrats in the Northern States as well. And the Railroads were a cooperative venture with big business.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

Once again you will not get away with comparing those Republicans to modern day Democrats. The fact is that Republicans were conservative just not as conservative as Democrats back then. As for freeing the slaves were not you one of those that pointed out the party did not intend to free them in the civil war and only did so to try and prevent Great Britain and France from siding with the Confederacy?

You are not able to get around history and terms and present-ism, RGS.

In 1860: the Republicans were big government and to the left of the Democrats who were far more conservative than the Republicans of the day, You are taking about "France and England", not me. Freeing the slaves and crushing the south were Big Government liberal activities for the day, where as the Democratic South was trying to conserve the status quo.

You try any of your crap, RGS, in any history class taught by professionals, and you will fail miserably.

No Professor would make the claim that todays Democrats are the same as the 1860's Republicans, they would get laughed out of the room.

 

[DarkFury]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

They did NOT subsidize public railroads they JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors to build railroads.

"crushing seceding states".....What part of liberal is crushing? Mandating? Regulating? THEY mandated and regulated EQUAL rights.

"homestead grants".....THAT goes back to the king so NO new policy there other then to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

"JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors", if you are right, is fascism, which you guys keep insisting is liberal. "crushing seceding states" is big business liberal stuff, bubs. The homestead laws were liberal efforts to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

Fascist is FORCED investing.
Homestead laws were NOT liberal efforts they were CONSERVATIVE efforts to protect private property because BEFORE those laws government could give OR take away without question OR due process. Republicans stood on the FACT if you own it then it's YOURS period.

Democrats HAD listed slaves as PROPERTY thus the NEED for amendments CORRECTING an injustice of TRUE equality.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

They did NOT subsidize public railroads they JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors to build railroads.

"crushing seceding states".....What part of liberal is crushing? Mandating? Regulating? THEY mandated and regulated EQUAL rights.

"homestead grants".....THAT goes back to the king so NO new policy there other then to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

"JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors", if you are right, is fascism, which you guys keep insisting is liberal. "crushing seceding states" is big business liberal stuff, bubs. The homestead laws were liberal efforts to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

Facist is FORCED investing.
Homestead laws were NOT liberal efforts they were CONSERVATIVE efforts to protect private property because BEFORE those laws government could give OR take away without question OR due process. Republicans stood on the FACT if you own it then it's YOURS period.

Democrats HAD listed slaves as PROPERTY thus the NEED for amendments CORRECTING an injustice of TRUE equality.

Sorry Republicans in the 1860's did not espouse equality for the black man. They were opposed to slavery because it was a corrupting institute and because all men should have the right to gain from their own labors. A conservative opinion I might add.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

They did NOT subsidize public railroads they JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors to build railroads.

"crushing seceding states".....What part of liberal is crushing? Mandating? Regulating? THEY mandated and regulated EQUAL rights.

"homestead grants".....THAT goes back to the king so NO new policy there other then to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

"JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors", if you are right, is fascism, which you guys keep insisting is liberal. "crushing seceding states" is big business liberal stuff, bubs. The homestead laws were liberal efforts to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

Facist is FORCED investing.
Homestead laws were NOT liberal efforts they were CONSERVATIVE efforts to protect private property because BEFORE those laws government could give OR take away without question OR due process. Republicans stood on the FACT if you own it then it's YOURS period.

Democrats HAD listed slaves as PROPERTY thus the NEED for amendments CORRECTING an injustice of TRUE equality.

Sorry Republicans in the 1860's did not espouse equality for the black man. They were opposed to slavery because it was a corrupting institute and because all men should have the right to gain from their own labors. A conservative opinion I might add.

Not according to the slave owners, who were conservatives in relation to Lincoln and his millions of followers.

 

[Jroc]

The Pubs were indeed the liberals of of their times from the 1850s to long after.

They were for big government: subsidizing railroads, Homestead grants and laws for the public domain, crushing the seceding states, freeing the slaves.

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc., were the liberals of their times compared to the Tories and the Loyalists.

Please look up "present-ism" and understand how that works.

They did NOT subsidize public railroads they JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors to build railroads.

"crushing seceding states".....What part of liberal is crushing? Mandating? Regulating? THEY mandated and regulated EQUAL rights.

"homestead grants".....THAT goes back to the king so NO new policy there other then to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

"JOINTLY invested with PRIVATE investors", if you are right, is fascism, which you guys keep insisting is liberal. "crushing seceding states" is big business liberal stuff, bubs. The homestead laws were liberal efforts to ENFORCE and PROTECT private land ownership.

Facist is FORCED investing.
Homestead laws were NOT liberal efforts they were CONSERVATIVE efforts to protect private property because BEFORE those laws government could give OR take away without question OR due process. Republicans stood on the FACT if you own it then it's YOURS period.

Democrats HAD listed slaves as PROPERTY thus the NEED for amendments CORRECTING an injustice of TRUE equality.

Sorry Republicans in the 1860's did not espouse equality for the black man. They were opposed to slavery because it was a corrupting institute and because all men should have the right to gain from their own labors. A conservative opinion I might add.

Not according to the slave owners, who were conservatives in relation to Lincoln and his millions of followers.

Jake is like a parrot who keeps repeating the same thing. Lincoln was a conservative, liberty loving, Republican. Do you understand liberty Fake? I don't think you do because you push big government statism which robs us of our liberties.The Democratic party stands for subjugation..

Those who actually study Lincoln’s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” He loved and admired “the sentiments of those old-time men,” our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles – equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.

Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by today’s Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence “does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position.” He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a “living” and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.

He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin “poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.” In a free society, a citizen can “look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.”

Lincoln s Conservative Vision

 

[regent]

Using political parties to prove a political ideology is difficult because parties often change names, or parts of parties can even differ, depending on such things as sectionalism, issue and so on. Political ideology remains pretty constant, however, and the use of liberal or conservative can be more accurate labels.
One can drive students crazy with the early Republican and Democratic party labels, and some board posters use those early political party labels to confuse.
Was Lincoln a liberal as some authors have suggested. Was the Republican party of Lincoln liberal? Was the Democratic party divided on the issue of slavery?

 

[DarkFury]

Using political parties to prove a political ideology is difficult because parties often change names, or parts of parties can even differ, depending on such things as sectionalism, issue and so on. Political ideology remains pretty constant, however, and the use of liberal or conservative can be more accurate labels.
One can drive students crazy with the early Republican and Democratic party labels, and some board posters use those early political party labels to confuse.
Was Lincoln a liberal as some authors have suggested. Was the Republican party of Lincoln liberal? Was the Democratic party divided on the issue of slavery?

Not sure about how ALL democrats felt about the south but they did divide and then re-divide. Case in point Virginia.

Virginia broke away from the north then part of Virginia broke away from the south as well. Thus the state of West Virginia was born.
So there were cracks in the democratic base from day one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc "is like a parrot who keeps repeating the same thing." Lincoln was to the left of the Democratic Party on social, political, and economic matters. "Do you understand liberty" Jroc? "I don't think you do because" Lincoln pushed "big government statism", which for that day and time was necessary for ending the CSA and slavery

The conservatives of the time were Democratic and slavers.

You would fail any college history class in America with your misuse of terms and present-ism, Jroc.

The millennials understand your kind are the talking wrong.