rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,203
- 266,080
- 3,615
It was not established as a Slave Country
Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday
- Thread starter Biff_Poindexter
- Start date
What a dumbfuck.
{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.
Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}
Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com
You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..
Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.
The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)
Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.
Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.
The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.
What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.
Last edited:
Frankeneinstein
Gold Member
Just another dance, What happened to all those slave owners? they all morphed into the democratic party...
and davis a democrat was part of the house and senate of the USA.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 120,763
- 127,163
- 3,645
You are embarrassing yourself.
Frankeneinstein
Gold Member
Be glad it's not you this time?
There's no such thing. There is a Democratic Party, which got put together a good three hundred years after Slavery began on these shores, it having no need of a political party to buy and sell slaves, and those slave owners turned over for generations and centuries before that point. The founder of that party, who was a POTUS candidate for the Free Soil Party, got beat in his re-election bid by a Whig slaveowner who was succeeded by a Democrat slaveowner who was succeeded by another Whig slaveowner who was succeeded by two more Democrats who didn't own slaves and didn't believe in it, so I'm not seeing your pattern here.
NOBODY ANYWHERE has ever, in the history of humanity, needed a political party to engage in Slavery. It wasn't a political condition. It was a commercial condition.
The simple fact REMAINS --- the Confederacy had no political parties. Presumably had it survived the War and developed beyond its four years it would have come up with some but ------------------ it didn't. I really don't give a shit what kind of mythology you'd like to desperately cling to like some security blanket, them's the facts.
It's "Davis", not "davis" and "Democrat" not "democrat"; it's "House" not "house" and "Senate" not "senate". After that you just killed your own point by finally finding the shift key.
What a maroon.
Frankeneinstein
Gold Member
just more dance, sounds like an argument KKK democrats would try to get away with... slave owners became democrats, who became liberal democrats, who stood in the doorway of school buildings during the civil rights movement, used dogs for crowd control and who now point fingers at everyone else...starting to see a pattern yet? [not that a pattern is even necessary to be true, just another misdirection that doesn't hold water] just about every [if not every] stance against civil rights for the black community in our history has been by democrats of the liberal variety.
No one [or at least not me] said it was a condition, You're just answering something that is easier to answer than what I posted
Jefferson Davis - Wikipedia
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a "Liberal Democrat" --- or a "Liberal anything" -- standing in a schoolhouse door.
Can't be done. The whole basis of Liberalism is that "all men are created equal". That leaves zero room for racism.
What a dumbass. And we thought you were embarrassing yourself BEFORE.
Scamp
Gold Member
- Banned
- #649
What a dumbfuck.
{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.
Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}
Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com
You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..
Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.
The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)
Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.
Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.
The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.
What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.
Pogo, you left out the fact that Martin Van Buren was a slave owner from the northern state of New York.
What a dumbfuck.
{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.
Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}
Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com
You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..
Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.
The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)
Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.
Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.
The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.
What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.
Pogo, you left out the fact that Martin Van Buren was a slave owner from the northern state of New York.
I also left out that van Buren was the only POTUS whose native language was not English. Not really relevant.
Van Buren was a "slave owner" in even less a way than Grant was --- his father had owned six slaves, he inherited one, who escaped, and Van Buren said "**** it'. And that was way before politics. He considered Slavery to be immoral and spoke loudly against it. So thanks for bringing that up.
Scamp
Gold Member
- Banned
- #651
What a dumbfuck.
{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.
Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}
Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com
You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..
Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.
The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)
Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.
Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.
The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.
What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.
Pogo, you left out the fact that Martin Van Buren was a slave owner from the northern state of New York.
I also left out that van Buren was the only POTUS whose native language was not English. Not really relevant.
Van Buren was a "slave owner" in even less a way than Grant was --- his father had owned six slaves, he inherited one, who escaped, and Van Buren said "**** it'. And that was way before politics. He considered Slavery to be immoral and spoke loudly against it. So thanks for bringing that up.
Lots of Yankee slave owners were for slavery before they were against it. Ben Franklin from PA was another. He bought and sold slaves. Money was more important than the morality of slavery to him.
What a dumbfuck.
{
While the Republicans united behind Lincoln in 1860, the Democrats began to split along sectional lines. Southern Democrats demanded more protection for slavery as part of the party platform. Northern Democrats, feeling they had already gone too far to gain the goodwill of the South, refused these demands. Unable to agree, the two sides split. The Southerners nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge (1821–1875) on a platform promising protection and even promotion of slavery in all the territories; the Northerners nominated Douglas. Dissatisfied with both these alternatives, a group of border-state moderates formed yet another party, the Constitutional Union movement, with a platform that offered little more than a veiled promise to stick to the middle ground on slavery issues.
Republicans worked hard for Lincoln, promoting an image of their candidate as a man of the people and an American success story. Buoyed by a party platform that artfully combined opposition to the “slave power conspiracy” with an appeal to important special interests, Lincoln won every free state in the Union on election day, securing a clear majority and winning the election.}
Political Parties of the Antebellum Era | Encyclopedia.com
You might be ignorant Sluggo, but at least you're full of shit..
Don't know why you think you're filling me in on shit I already know. And more.
The Constitutional Unionists, headed by John Bell of Tennessee, were unionists -- opposed to secession. They were an offshoot of the Whigs, then collapsing because of their inability to come to an agreement on what to do about Slavery, which was chronic to all parties other than the Republicans (who did not organize or put Lincoln on the ballots, in the South)
Bell, himself a slaveholder, advocated containing but not expanding Slavery. Douglas, the Democrat, stood for "popular sovereignty", the credo of leaving the question up to new states as they came in, the do-nothing philosophy that worked so well for the outgoing Buchanan (/sarc). Given how well that idea had worked out in Kansas it wasn't at all popular and Douglas came in dead last winning a total of one state (Missouri) and getting shut out of Electoral votes in what would become the Confederacy. After the election Douglas then went on a speaking tour through the South on Lincoln's behalf arguing against the idea of secession, and when that failed advised Lincoln on fighting the Confederacy.
Oh by the way Pothead, I don't need to go look this up and cut-paste it. It's all in my head. I actually live here.
The Democratic Party, as I corrected you earlier, was organized by Martin van Buren, who lost his re-election bid in 1840 to a Whig (Harrison, a Southern slaveholder). Harrison's VP Tyler finished out his term and was replaced by a Democrat (Polk, a Southern slaveholder) who was in turn replaced by another Whig (Taylor, a Southern slaveholder)... you get the idea, not to leave out the Know Nothings of this same era, the ideological closest ancestor to the Klan.
What you did cut and paste is accurate, and it in no way contradicts the post you quoted, so you and your cut-paste can go sit on a tack.
Pogo, you left out the fact that Martin Van Buren was a slave owner from the northern state of New York.
I also left out that van Buren was the only POTUS whose native language was not English. Not really relevant.
Van Buren was a "slave owner" in even less a way than Grant was --- his father had owned six slaves, he inherited one, who escaped, and Van Buren said "**** it'. And that was way before politics. He considered Slavery to be immoral and spoke loudly against it. So thanks for bringing that up.
Lots of Yankee slave owners were for slavery before they were against it. Ben Franklin from PA was another. He bought and sold slaves. Money was more important than the morality of slavery to him.
Again, that's incredibly fascinating and we're all feverishly taking copious notes on any scraps of paper we can find, but this thread is neither about Slavery, nor about Ben Franklin, nor about anyone else whose entire lifespan preceded the Civil War.
What don't you GET about that?
Well don't forget Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond. Republicans are in the same sewer.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 309,203
- 266,080
- 3,615
1. What other group, do you examine and judge whether or not they are allowed to celebrate their heritage and culture?
2. They were forgiven and accepted back into America, by the rest of America, including, the very men that fought and defeated them. Who are you, to have the Moral Authority to over rule them and withdraw that forgiveness? FIVE ******* GENERATIONS AFTER THE FACT?
The Confederacy was treason.
What other group in the world is given a holiday to commemorate treason? Is their entire culture defined by this and only this? That is what you seem to be arguing.
1. You are the one pretending to be upset over "treason". The treason issue, AND the underlying issue that sparked it, were both resolved to the Union's satisfaction. Jim Crow is you moving the goal posts. Which is another way of saying, you are admitting that your actual stated reasons, have been refuted.
2. It totally does have to do with Moral Authority. THe men who had to fight and bleed to defeat that rebellion, accepted their surrender and forgave them and welcomed them back into the nation as full equals. You do not have the Moral Authority to gain say that. '
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Latest Poll Shows Americans Approve Of Iran Military Action- Started by Independent thinker
- Replies: 2
-
NPR didn’t quote a single member of Michigan synagogue after attack — but interviewed terrorist’s pals in Lebanon- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 5
