Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Ame®icano]

It's an attack on our history that must be preserved for future generations warts and all.

Here we are in a civil war again. What was that about those who fail to learn from history?

The Antebellum South was a horrible society. Feudalism where a tiny monied elite had absolute control of state governments and preyed on the populace at large. Georgia with the small holder act that allowed large plantations to literally steal land from small farmers. Poor whites fared worse than black slaves. I have nothing good to say about the south. BUT erasing history is what the Taliban and other tyrants do.

Poor whites fared worse than black slaves, Smfh. That has to be one of the stupidest statements ever made on this message board.

It’s all part of Lost Cause Revisionist history

Did you know that Whites were slaves too?
That makes four million black slaves OK

Republicans were against slavery. Period.

What do you think who owned those white slaves?

Were

Huh?

 

[IM2]

And yet --- I just had a wag ( 2aguy ) try to tell me "the Democrats started the Civil War and fought the Republicans".

You'd like to say it was war between north and south, but in reality, it was war between Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans lived in the south.

 

[IM2]

Why republicans of today want to continue telling lies about their party is pathetic. Rutherford P. Hayes ended reconstruction with a compromise with democrats so he could become president. That is not defending the rights of blacks and that is an example of how complicit republicans were in the apartheid that took place in America after slavery until at least 1965.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Southern people who conspired to enforce Jim Crow second class citizenship after they no longer could have slaves

Oh, democrats?

Yeah, democrats are real scum. Always were, always will be. They're doing the Jim Crow shit again, but this time against white people. ******* vermin....

Southerners

Southerners owned slaves for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

Cool. Now tell us what party was dominant in South?

Northern Democrats were pro slavery too. Only one party was against it.

NO party was "dominant in the South" until after the Civil War. We've done this.

The Whigs got more votes in the 1860 POTUS election than the Democrats. Way more. And the Democrat position of the time was "popular sovereigny" --- leave the question up to the new states as they came in. In other words pretend the problem isn't there and will fix itself. The country had been buying that for 80 years and was done buying it.

You are done, not "we".

Democrats were dominant in South before AND after Civil War. They seceded South from U.S. and created CSA. You'r claim that during Civil War there were no political parties in South is irrelevant, temporary pause to fight the war means nothing.

Yet another bullshit. Whigs were dysfunctional party, replaced by Republicans, and although they had more votes than Norther Democrats, or Southern Democrats (separately), they had no presence and no impact in South. By the way, "popular sovereignty" position that Democrats had, to let new states decide about slavery, IS pro-slavery position. What if all new states wanted slavery? Democrats wouldn't mind it. That means Democrats in North and South were pro-slavery, while Republicans were strictly anti-slavery. Not "maybe", not "let them decide", but definite NO slavery.

and they still lost...deal with it....

Throw a parade and play dress up...…

It just won't be on the taxpayers dime....

Are you upset that confederate parades are gayer than these kind??

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Here we are in a civil war again. What was that about those who fail to learn from history?

The Antebellum South was a horrible society. Feudalism where a tiny monied elite had absolute control of state governments and preyed on the populace at large. Georgia with the small holder act that allowed large plantations to literally steal land from small farmers. Poor whites fared worse than black slaves. I have nothing good to say about the south. BUT erasing history is what the Taliban and other tyrants do.

Poor whites fared worse than black slaves, Smfh. That has to be one of the stupidest statements ever made on this message board.

It’s all part of Lost Cause Revisionist history

Did you know that Whites were slaves too?
That makes four million black slaves OK

Republicans were against slavery. Period.

What do you think who owned those white slaves?

Were Southern Republicans against slavery? Because we know they were for Jim Crow Laws.

Today’s Republicans honor Confederate values

Yep and many have the mindset of the sheetwearers as well.

 

[bodecea]

Here we are in a civil war again. What was that about those who fail to learn from history?

The Antebellum South was a horrible society. Feudalism where a tiny monied elite had absolute control of state governments and preyed on the populace at large. Georgia with the small holder act that allowed large plantations to literally steal land from small farmers. Poor whites fared worse than black slaves. I have nothing good to say about the south. BUT erasing history is what the Taliban and other tyrants do.

Poor whites fared worse than black slaves, Smfh. That has to be one of the stupidest statements ever made on this message board.

It’s all part of Lost Cause Revisionist history

Did you know that Whites were slaves too?
That makes four million black slaves OK

Republicans were against slavery. Period.

What do you think who owned those white slaves?

Were

Huh?

More wonderful, articulate speech right there.

 

[bodecea]

Why were they so full of hate towards black folks? Why should people today honor symbols of hate?

They are not symbols of hate. They are harmless symbols of regional pride.


You seem to be the one seething with hate today.

Hmmm, how am I hating because I am not honoring people who enslaved, maimed, dismembered, raped, brutalized and murdered black folks.

Because you are hating good people who have done none of that, and merely want to celebrate their regional culture and heritage.


THe part where you hate them? That is you being hateful.


Did I make that clear enough for you?


That you have your reasons or excuses for your hate, does not make it, not hate. You still hate them.

Why is it that to you "regional culture and heritage" is only about a 4 year bloody war that those who started it got their asses beat?

No one said that. Why are you acting as though that is someone's position? You didn't even say that.

Oh, right. LIbs just say shit. Sorry for taking you seriously for a second. I just got up. Was thinking you are a person.

So your "culture" has nothing to do with a 4 year bloody war? Easy then to not be worried about the removal of statues celebrating that 4 year bloody war since it doesn't have anything to do with your "culture"....problem solved.

 

[bodecea]

Here we are in a civil war again. What was that about those who fail to learn from history?

The Antebellum South was a horrible society. Feudalism where a tiny monied elite had absolute control of state governments and preyed on the populace at large. Georgia with the small holder act that allowed large plantations to literally steal land from small farmers. Poor whites fared worse than black slaves. I have nothing good to say about the south. BUT erasing history is what the Taliban and other tyrants do.

Poor whites fared worse than black slaves, Smfh. That has to be one of the stupidest statements ever made on this message board.

It’s all part of Lost Cause Revisionist history

Did you know that Whites were slaves too?
That makes four million black slaves OK

Republicans were against slavery. Period.

What do you think who owned those white slaves?

Were Southern Republicans against slavery? Because we know they were for Jim Crow Laws.

Today’s Republicans honor Confederate values

Who's the ones who had a cow when that woman climbed the flagpole and removed the Southern Cross flag? Not Democrats.

 

[rightwinger]

Why republicans of today want to continue telling lies about their party is pathetic. Rutherford P. Hayes ended reconstruction with a compromise with democrats so he could become president. That is not defending the rights of blacks and that is an example of how complicit republicans were in the apartheid that took place in America after slavery until at least 1965.

It paved the way for Jim Crow as a substitute for slavery

 

[rightwinger]

They are not symbols of hate. They are harmless symbols of regional pride.


You seem to be the one seething with hate today.

Hmmm, how am I hating because I am not honoring people who enslaved, maimed, dismembered, raped, brutalized and murdered black folks.

Because you are hating good people who have done none of that, and merely want to celebrate their regional culture and heritage.


THe part where you hate them? That is you being hateful.


Did I make that clear enough for you?


That you have your reasons or excuses for your hate, does not make it, not hate. You still hate them.

Why is it that to you "regional culture and heritage" is only about a 4 year bloody war that those who started it got their asses beat?

No one said that. Why are you acting as though that is someone's position? You didn't even say that.

Oh, right. LIbs just say shit. Sorry for taking you seriously for a second. I just got up. Was thinking you are a person.

So your "culture" has nothing to do with a 4 year bloody war? Easy then to not be worried about the removal of statues celebrating that 4 year bloody war since it doesn't have anything to do with your "culture"....problem solved.

Their “culture” is the subjugation and dehumanization of blacks

That is what they are celebrating

 

[mamooth]

Virginia rocks.

Virginia lawmakers approve Confederate statue removal bills

They're passing a law allowing individual cities to decide what to do with their Confederate monuments. That's a blow for freedom, as currently state law forces cities to retain unwanted monuments.

Slavery-lovers won't like that, but nobody cares about them. Let them retreat to the towns that love their Confederate monuments to slavery.

 

[bodecea]

Virginia rocks.

Virginia lawmakers approve Confederate statue removal bills

They're passing a law allowing individual cities to decide what to do with their Confederate monuments. That's a blow for freedom, as currently state law forces cities to retain unwanted monuments.

Slavery-lovers won't like that, but nobody cares about them. Let them retreat to the towns that love their Confederate monuments to slavery.

True...if they were the majority, as one poster here lyingly claims, they'd have the votes to keep said statues.

 

[Pogo]

Southern people who conspired to enforce Jim Crow second class citizenship after they no longer could have slaves

Oh, democrats?

Yeah, democrats are real scum. Always were, always will be. They're doing the Jim Crow shit again, but this time against white people. ******* vermin....

Southerners

Southerners owned slaves for 200 years before the Democratic Party was formed

Cool. Now tell us what party was dominant in South?

Northern Democrats were pro slavery too. Only one party was against it.

NO party was "dominant in the South" until after the Civil War. We've done this.

The Whigs got more votes in the 1860 POTUS election than the Democrats. Way more. And the Democrat position of the time was "popular sovereigny" --- leave the question up to the new states as they came in. In other words pretend the problem isn't there and will fix itself. The country had been buying that for 80 years and was done buying it.

You are done, not "we".

Democrats were dominant in South before AND after Civil War. They seceded South from U.S. and created CSA. You'r claim that during Civil War there were no political parties in South is irrelevant, temporary pause to fight the war means nothing.

Uh nnnnno Sprinkles, that's bullshit. Once again, the Whigs won more southern states in the 1860 election (Virginia and Tennessee, plus the border state of Kentucky) than the Democrats won (zero); and prior to that they had already kicked out the Democratic Party, literally, from their turf in Charleston where they tried to hold a convention. When they seceded and formed the CSA they had no political parties, which is to be expected since there wasn't time to form conflicting 'sides', the only question on the table being to secede or not to secede, which was by no means unanimous or even dominant.

Before that War the South, like the North, had had Democrats (from the 1830s), Whigs (1830-1860); Know Nothings (1840s-1850s) and before that, Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, and those are just the major ones. I'm afraid this country hasn't always been the binary dichotomy soup you seem to want to swim in because complexity is hard. Three Southern POTUSes were Democratic-Republicans, two were Whigs, ONE was a Democrat. Two more had no party and both of them are on paper currency. If you could go ahead and essplain to the class how that comprises "dominance", by anybody, that'd be great.

Moreover the Democrats in 1860-61 were against secession. Their losing candidate went on a media blitz to try to talk them out of it after losing the election. Then he came back and advised Lincoln to hit them hard.

Oh and it wasn't a "pause" anyway. The intention of the CSA was to establish and perpetuate its own country, not to "pause". SMH

This is all in the history books, it ain't like it's a secret.

Yet another bullshit. Whigs were dysfunctional party, replaced by Republicans, and although they had more votes than Norther Democrats, or Southern Democrats (separately), they had no presence and no impact in South. By the way, "popular sovereignty" position that Democrats had, to let new states decide about slavery, IS pro-slavery position. What if all new states wanted slavery? Democrats wouldn't mind it. That means Democrats in North and South were pro-slavery, while Republicans were strictly anti-slavery. Not "maybe", not "let them decide", but definite NO slavery.

If Whigs were "replaced by Republicans" at the time, how come they beat the Republicans in Tennessee, Virginia and Kentucky? I'll go ahead and give you your answer --- Lincoln didn't run in those states. His name wasn't on the ballots in the states that would become the Confederacy. Wasn't even on ballots in his birth state of Kentucky until 1864 (when he ran with a Democrat running mate). Now how are Whigs "replaced by Republicans" when the Republicans didn't even organize in the South, or even Kentucky, before the War?

Second, "popular sovereignty" does not mean being pro-Slavery; it means failing to take a position. In the big picture it's a cop-out. It's what infected most of the other parties up to that time including the Whigs, who couldn't decide among themselves what position to take and collapsed because of it. Democrats of the time were the "states rights" small -government party who preferred to leave such decisions up to the states --- in contrast to the Whigs who liked to do big things with Government. Well if you've got an activist government that can't decide what it wants to do about Slavery, and the question comes to a head, you're gonna get left behind, and there went the Whigs in the 1850s, their last gasp being the Constitutional Union Party that ran Bell 1860.

That's why Buchanan didn't act forcefully on South Carolina at Fort Sumter --- he didn't believe a POTUS had the authority. His successor did (and he too had been a Whig).

Republicans were the (latest) party that took the stand against Slavery. They weren't the first (see Liberty Party 1840-1848, Free Soil Party 1848-1854) but by 1860 the timing was right for it. And in the context of the rest of the Americas, most of which had already abolished, long overdue.

But to return to your original hallucination, the now-familiar episode of the "Solid South" where if you wanted to run for office you either ran as a Democrat or you lost, that began in the 1870s. And it was emotional more than anything else, based on the white population's visceral revulsion to the "party of Lincoln". Once the Republican Party abandoned its Liberal underpinnings (Abolition) and took on the interests of the wealthy, the corporations/railroads and Wall Street, while the Democratic Party correspondingly took up the labor vote, the immigrants, the minorities, it slowly became clear that the latter was no longer the bastion of conservatism.and the "Solid South" made less and less logical sense, driven only by that emotion. Even in the 1920s the hyperconservative extreme, the Ku Klux Klan, already saw it and was endorsing and supporting Republicans to reflect its values.

This is all that (what summa y'all like to call) "party switch", as if it was flicked on and off like a light switch, that developed between the 1890s and the early 20th century. Old (voting) habits die hard, and both conservative and liberal elements continued to be predominantly Democrats in the South until 1964. That's when Strom Thurmond did what was for Southern whites unthinkable, and joined that "party of Lincoln", finally acknowledging the reality he had already demonstrated dramatically sixteen years prior. The black vote on the other hand had already seen the writing on the wall and started voting Democratic in the 1930s.

And here we are.

Political parties / ideologies .... know the difference.

 

[Crixus]

And yet --- I just had a wag ( 2aguy ) try to tell me "the Democrats started the Civil War and fought the Republicans".

You'd like to say it was war between north and south, but in reality, it was war between Republicans and Democrats.

That's correct
All slaveholders were Democratics
Even in the south, no Republicans owned slaves

Probably true, since the Repulicans didn't organize, or even run a POTUS candidate, in the South until 1868. And that year's candidate, Grant, had been a slaveholder but was not in the South, so I'll give you that.

But as to the first part, nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnno. Nobody holding (or trading/selling) slaves ever needed a political party. And that (both) was going on for three hundred years before "Democratics" existed, or any other political party. Which in turn means that the overwheliming majority of slave owners/traders had no political party at all. Nor did they need one.

You should know to right? You have all that archival material that weirdly looks like Googlefoo? You are right though, the democrats diddnt need a political party to begin the civil war, but fact is they were in one. That the civil war was republicans against democrats is just retarded and about the most stupid thing I ever heard. Just retarded.

 

[rightwinger]

Virginia rocks.

Virginia lawmakers approve Confederate statue removal bills

They're passing a law allowing individual cities to decide what to do with their Confederate monuments. That's a blow for freedom, as currently state law forces cities to retain unwanted monuments.

Slavery-lovers won't like that, but nobody cares about them. Let them retreat to the towns that love their Confederate monuments to slavery.

Good to see Virginia enter the 21st century

 

[Pogo]

Virginia rocks.

Virginia lawmakers approve Confederate statue removal bills

They're passing a law allowing individual cities to decide what to do with their Confederate monuments. That's a blow for freedom, as currently state law forces cities to retain unwanted monuments.

Slavery-lovers won't like that, but nobody cares about them. Let them retreat to the towns that love their Confederate monuments to slavery.

Good to see Virginia enter the 21st century

Hold that thought until they get rid of that radar detector law.

 

[Correll]

Why are you so full of hate towards these people?

Why were they so full of hate towards black folks? Why should people today honor symbols of hate?

They are not symbols of hate. They are harmless symbols of regional pride.


You seem to be the one seething with hate today.

Hmmm, how am I hating because I am not honoring people who enslaved, maimed, dismembered, raped, brutalized and murdered black folks.

Because you are hating good people who have done none of that, and merely want to celebrate their regional culture and heritage.

Celebrate all they want, but the rest of us don't have to pay for it.

THe part where you hate them? That is you being hateful.


Did I make that clear enough for you?

No, explain it too me.

That you have your reasons or excuses for your hate, does not make it, not hate. You still hate them.

It's not hate, it's REMEMBERANCE.

No, what you are doing, is hate. And you know it.

 

[Correll]

Yes, a majority of the people, driven primarily as you stated, by modern blacks.


I ask again, since you brought it up.


why they are more important than the rest of the nation and why they are not bound by the principles of multiculturalism?

You really don’t understand how a Democracy works

I understand how multicultualism is supposed to work. We are supposed to all live in harmony.


Why are the people of Virginia, primary, as you stated, the modern black ones, not being tolerant of Southern Whites who want to celebrate their culture and heritage?

And why do you support it? Does it not pose a huge problem for your multiculturalism and diversity agenda?

Sooooo you're sitting here admitting that this was a "white" holiday ---- after calling another poster "racist" for being concerned about blacks?

WOW dood. Hypocrite much?

We are past all of that. The question now is what are the standards by which some cultures are judged and others just get a pass.

So since you freely admit that this whole confederate holiday is about "white culture" -- we won't be hearing any more failed "but there were black confederates too" arguments??

Cool...and what are modern blacks exactly??

The whites are the ones being smeared here. You show me a sizable contingent of black southerns supporting the memorials and statues, and I will be happy to include them in with the people being attacked.


I imagine that somehow, the attacks on them would be different.



MOdern blacks are blacks today, to distinguish from blacks in the distant past.

 

[Correll]

Funny, you could have denied hating me. But, I guess there is a limit to how stupid, even you want to look.


My point stands.


IN this multicultural society we have build, all cultures are supposed to be able to live in harmony and peace and tolerance.


But, some cultures are less tolerated than others. As you and rw are demonstrating with your hate.

Over a 150 years later and Confederates and their racist fanboys continue lying when faced with righteousness..

Maybe if God was on the side of the Confederates, the truth wouldn't sting you so much....

YOu can shove your race baiting up your ass, fucktard.

No need to lash out at me....
...g

When you call me a name, there is plenty of reason to point out that you are a ******* asshole.


You want to talk about the topic? Stop being a ******* race baiting asshole.

Says the person who has admitted that confederate day is a celebration of white culture....you are a dic sucker, **** what you whining about

Southern white culture. As part of the larger American Identity.


And, my point stands. Do you want to talk about the topic? And stop being a race baiting asshole?

AND, why don't you pull that dick out of YOUR mouth, while you are at it, *** boy?

 

[Correll]

Why are you so full of hate towards these people?

Why were they so full of hate towards black folks? Why should people today honor symbols of hate?

They are not symbols of hate. They are harmless symbols of regional pride.


You seem to be the one seething with hate today.

Hmmm, how am I hating because I am not honoring people who enslaved, maimed, dismembered, raped, brutalized and murdered black folks.

Because you are hating good people who have done none of that, and merely want to celebrate their regional culture and heritage.


THe part where you hate them? That is you being hateful.


Did I make that clear enough for you?


That you have your reasons or excuses for your hate, does not make it, not hate. You still hate them.

Actually you didn't, the people who are being honored by you and other racist did all of those things I spoke of. I haven't used the word hate one time, but you are right I'll be damned if I honor any of those folks who enslaved, maimed, tortured, raped, lynched and treated black folks less than they did the family dog.

I did not say you used the word. But your obvious anger, over events from over 4 generations before you were born, is not anger caused by actual impact or harm, but from hate, your racist hate.


That you have your excuses, and that you like to keep repeating them, so as to try to, what? Get an emotional reaction from someone?


Does not excuse your hate. YOu racist.