Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[rightwinger]

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

Actually almost no Southern Democrats or Republicans voted for it

It was part of their racist culture

 

[rightwinger]

The Civil War was all about state's rights, and in its name many good people, soldiers and civilians, paid dearly for it.

"The Civil War was all about state's rights" --- and with the other side of their collective mouth they'll tell us the Lost Cause propaganda machine was ineffective.

States right to allow slavery

 

[rightwinger]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

Just discussing Southern Heritage

Democrat's heritage.

Republicans in the south supported Jim Crow
Democrats in the north opposed it

 

[Ame®icano]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

And the left has fought hard for those civil liberties, btw, FDR married his cousin...now there's a new deal for ya...don't know if ya ever saw a picture of her, but she was enough to give a normal man pause for considering options 2 and 3 on your list.

His 2nd cousin...totally legal still.

Legal, yes, but still totally degenerate.

FDR was freak of nature, since his birth to his death. But hey, that what you lefties love to idolize.

 

[Pogo]

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.

You are acting like you think it did.
I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders
All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)

The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)

You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.

Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.

That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

I'll address it, if I can get past the orgy of endless and pointless self-inflating carriage returns.........

The "dems [sic]" didn't "flip" on the issue unless you're referring to what other wanker posters insist on referring to as the "party switch", that period of the turn of the 19th/20th century when the two party largely and gradually traded (rather than "switched") their constituencies, That's when the Southern faction, already the redheaded stepchild in the party, began to lose its grip. That crack in effect began in 1936 when FDR, at the height of his power and influence, got the party convention rules changed for Presidential nomination from a two-thirds majority to a simple 51% majority. Under the previous rules the South was able to hold the convention hostage --- as it infamously did in 1924 --- in resisting liberal civil rights-friendly candidates, by denying that two-thirds threshold.

The Ku Klux Klan was doing its part too, a few years earlier in 1928 when it endorsed Herbert Hoover and ran a national smear campaign against Al Smith (because he was a Catholic), as seen here:

Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Texas going from blue to red, and Alabama weak. The VP on the ticket was from Arkansas or it might have been worse for them. No doubt Roosevelt could smell the blood in the water.

In the first election year after WW2 had run its course, that Southern contingent, in an echo of 1860 Charleston, walked out of the convention upon hearing too much about "civil rights" from the incumbent Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and went to run their own campaign, even getting Truman kicked off the Democratic ballot where they could (in return Thurmond was kicked off his ballot when he then tried to run for Senator, ran as a write-in with no party, and won anyway).

1920s... 1930s... 1940s,

So those seeds were sown decades before the 1960s, during which time the South had been hanging on as the way-out right wing of the party, opposed to the thrust of the national party but loathe to join the "party of Lincoln", until the same renegade from 1948, Thurmond, took the plunge in 1964 So this is not a party "flipping' --- it's a batshit wing of a party flipping upon facing the reality that they'd been sitting in the wrong room and it was not going to get them anywhere.

Summa y'all still have yet to grok the distinction between ideologies and political parties.

 

[Pogo]

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

Actually almost no Southern Democrats or Republicans voted for it

It was part of their racist culture

Actually more Southern Democrats than Southern Republicans voted for it I believe the Republican total was zero.

They like to ignore that distinction because it's buzzkill.

 

[Pogo]

Put it this way; for the sake of argument, let's say US wants to admit Puerto Rico as 51st state. And although rape in US is illegal, under "popular sovereignty" doctrine, we gonna let Puerto Rico to decide if they want to allow rape to be legal in their state. Hey, it's their business, right?

Uhm, no. Those who are anti-rape, will not allow them to join the Union. And those who would let them decide about rape being legal... they're not really against rape, are they?

Bad analogy. Rape is not only already illegal in Puerto Rico, as it should be, but clearly an act of violence that was never legal anywhere. Popular Sovereignty meant something like what happened in Bleeding Kansas. It was obviously a bad idea simply because of the lengths the partisans would go to, as demonstrated. Kansas showed that leaving it up to the states wasn't going to work and stronger federal law would have to be applied to the question. Kansas in fact represented a microcosm of the War that followed it, and should have served as a warning. The Democrats' fault was in holding too fast to the position of smaller central government and "states' rights". That's (again) why Buchanan couldn't stop the War --- he was conservatively mired in that "states rights" position and unwilling to expand the power of the federal government.

It's not bad analogy, but your bad reasoning.

I know rape is illegal in Puerto Rico, that's why I said "for the sake of argument, let's say..." If you're not able to process that little, why are we talking at all? What if we replace "rape" with let's say "abortion"? For the sake of argument let's say that Puerto Rico is joining US as 51st state and per your "popular sovereignty" doctrine wants to keep their criminal abortion statute that prohibits abortion for reasons other than protecting the woman’s life. That is clearly in conflict with Roe v Wade, but hey, it's their decision to make. Right? No, you lefties would beat them into submission to drop the statute before they get admitted to the Union.

So you adjusted your analogy to a better one and then undermined it with a speculation fallacy.

But just for the sake of describing what "popular sovereignty" means, which does not permit your conclusion leap, yes it could work that way. Given Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, the hypothetical PR law would have to go bye-bye as a condition of statehood, so if a "popular sovereignty" were in effect, PR could choose to keep its law, as could any other entering state. And that's a "states rights", small government position.

Any version of such a "popular sovereignty" does not, and can not, presume what the various states' individual decisions would be. There's no sure way to tell if a future Montana or a future Arizona was going to be sympathetic to Slavery or not, but given the trends of the time, with the peculiar institution going down all over the Americas and under fire from within the US, the pro-Slavery section (the South) saw its influence likely dwindling as those new states came in,, which is both why they rejected Douglas AND why they seceded to form their own country where they wouldn't lose that influence. For that matter it's why they also kicked the Democratic Party convention out of Charleston in 1860 because "popular sovereignty" just wasn't going to go far enough for their ambitions.

In other words "popular sovereignty" was a crapshoot, and the South didn't like their odds in it.

 

[Pogo]

There is "one thing" that Southern parties had in common. They were all pro slavery parties, and after civil war mostly all emerged as Democrats. Even Northern Democrats under Douglas were pro slavery, although your argument is that he was for "popular sovereignty". I explained twice what that really means, but you rejected it.

Actually I explained what it means and I think you took it to a leap it didn't have. As noted above the Democrats were badly split by the same dynamic that collapsed the Whigs and started the Republicans (and also made the Know Nothings irrelevant). The Southern half of their party bolted and ran their own candidate. The pro-Slavery faction were the ones in the South, running Breckinridge. If Douglas had been on the same page they wouldn't have been running against each other nor would the Southern division have kicked the party out at Charleston in protest of the national party's position.

Actually, you explained it to what YOU want it to mean.

If you are against slavery, you are against slavery. Period.

If you are against slavery, you are not against slavery here, and for allowing slavery somewhere else, if somewhere else chose so. Therefore, if you're proponent of "popular sovereignty", you are not against slavery, and not being against slavery means, you are pro slavery.

It's not that black and white, no.
For instance both Franklin Pierce and Martin van Buren (who organized the party in the first place) abhorred slavery personally, but thought it was not in the power of the federal government to ban it. There's a difference between what one personally believes and what one has the authority to do. There's more to governmental function than simple emotion.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

Just discussing Southern Heritage

Democrat's heritage.

There wasn't a lot of Republicans in the South, so those Democrats were Southerners were they not?

 

[Ame®icano]

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

No, it didn't. You are focusing on a few people, and using them to smear a vastly larger population.


Because you hate that population. Because you are a bigot.

Few people my ass. Whole communities fought against integration

Here they are screaming at a six year old black girl

A six year old black girl who needed federal marshals to protect her while she goes to a white school

All racist Jim Crow laws in south were passed by Democratic legislators, signed by Democratic Governors and upheld by Democratic judges. You lefties cant blame anyone else for that, but yourself. You own it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

That's another fake quote.
In fact blacks had already been voting Democratic. Since the 1930s before LBJ ever ran for office. And we covered that, profusely, when we broke down the infamous "party switch" canard.

We?

You lefties claim there was a "party switch" in 60's, but always failed to prove that "party switch" aver happened. In fact, since you said it yourself, blacks have been "already" voting for Democrats since "New Deal", the "party switch" of the 60's is a myth.

How's that list coming? You almost completed it.

 

[Pogo]

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

No, it didn't. You are focusing on a few people, and using them to smear a vastly larger population.


Because you hate that population. Because you are a bigot.

Few people my ass. Whole communities fought against integration

Here they are screaming at a six year old black girl

A six year old black girl who needed federal marshals to protect her while she goes to a white school

All racist Jim Crow laws in south were passed by Democratic legislators, signed by Democratic Governors and upheld by Democratic judges. You lefties cant blame anyone else for that, but yourself. You own it.

Link?

And by the way your photo is from Pennsylvania. What's it even here for?

 

[Ame®icano]

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

Actually almost no Southern Democrats or Republicans voted for it

It was part of their racist culture

What are you insinuating?

 

[Pogo]

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

That's another fake quote.
In fact blacks had already been voting Democratic. Since the 1930s before LBJ ever ran for office. And we covered that, profusely, when we broke down the infamous "party switch" canard.

We?

You lefties claim there was a "party switch" in 60's, but always failed to prove that "party switch" aver happened. In fact, since you said it yourself, blacks have been "already" voting for Democrats since "New Deal", the "party switch" of the 60's is a myth.

How's that list coming? You almost completed it.

Where did I ever say "there was a 'party switch' in the '60s"? Show me a quote.
One that doesn't look like this:

 

[Ame®icano]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

Just discussing Southern Heritage

Democrat's heritage.

Republicans in the south supported Jim Crow
Democrats in the north opposed it

Republicans in South were outnumbered 10 to 1. And you still blame it on Republicans.

Let's put it this way, more Northern Democrats voted against CRA than Southern Republicans.

 

[rightwinger]

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity

Yes, some resistance. you want to try to post some more emotion triggering words and pictures to pretend that that refutes my point? (demagoguery)


The dems flipped on the issue because they were losing elections on the issue. Once they flipped on it, the racists lost any voice or representation in national policy from then forward. (at least the white anti-black racists)


You libs like to point to your former allies as representative of America, at least of that time.


Yet, they were being violent, because they had LOST, the policy battle, because the nation as a whole, was giving democratic support to the Republican led Equality Consensus.


That is my point. Would you like to address it, or would you like to just smear America some more, and pretend that is some how challenging my point, when it is not?

Some resistance?

The south declared all out war when asked to abandon segregation

No, it didn't. You are focusing on a few people, and using them to smear a vastly larger population.


Because you hate that population. Because you are a bigot.

Few people my ass. Whole communities fought against integration

Here they are screaming at a six year old black girl

A six year old black girl who needed federal marshals to protect her while she goes to a white school

All racist Jim Crow laws in south were passed by Democratic legislators, signed by Democratic Governors and upheld by Democratic judges. You lefties cant blame anyone else for that, but yourself. You own it.

It quite

There were Republicans in southern states too.
They supported Jim Crow

It is a southern thing

 

[Ame®icano]

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

Actually almost no Southern Democrats or Republicans voted for it

It was part of their racist culture

Actually more Southern Democrats than Southern Republicans voted for it I believe the Republican total was zero.

They like to ignore that distinction because it's buzzkill.

Yes, all 10 Republicans voted against it, yet you omitted Democrats votes.

Now, how many Democrats voted against it, give us a number.

 

[rightwinger]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

Just discussing Southern Heritage

Democrat's heritage.

Republicans in the south supported Jim Crow
Democrats in the north opposed it

Republicans in South were outnumbered 10 to 1. And you still blame it on Republicans.

Let's put it this way, more Northern Democrats voted against CRA than Southern Republicans.

I didn’t blame it on Republicans. I blamed it on the “peculiar institutions” of the south.

You are the one making it political

 

[Pogo]

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Correct. He convinced jest enough racist Southern Democrats to vote for it, in order to "have blacks voting for Democrats next 200 years".

He offered essentially the same bill he voted against few years earlier.

Actually almost no Southern Democrats or Republicans voted for it

It was part of their racist culture

Actually more Southern Democrats than Southern Republicans voted for it I believe the Republican total was zero.

They like to ignore that distinction because it's buzzkill.

Yes, all 10 Republicans voted against it, yet you omitted Democrats votes.

Now, how many Democrats voted against it, give us a number.

Done this many many MANY times.

This page summed it up nicely. From that page:

I know it's too small. You'll just have to bite the bullet and actually read the article. Oh the horror.

I could also quote my own posts from years ago where I had already worked it all out but I tire of having my facts ignored.

 

[Ame®icano]

Put it this way; for the sake of argument, let's say US wants to admit Puerto Rico as 51st state. And although rape in US is illegal, under "popular sovereignty" doctrine, we gonna let Puerto Rico to decide if they want to allow rape to be legal in their state. Hey, it's their business, right?

Uhm, no. Those who are anti-rape, will not allow them to join the Union. And those who would let them decide about rape being legal... they're not really against rape, are they?

Bad analogy. Rape is not only already illegal in Puerto Rico, as it should be, but clearly an act of violence that was never legal anywhere. Popular Sovereignty meant something like what happened in Bleeding Kansas. It was obviously a bad idea simply because of the lengths the partisans would go to, as demonstrated. Kansas showed that leaving it up to the states wasn't going to work and stronger federal law would have to be applied to the question. Kansas in fact represented a microcosm of the War that followed it, and should have served as a warning. The Democrats' fault was in holding too fast to the position of smaller central government and "states' rights". That's (again) why Buchanan couldn't stop the War --- he was conservatively mired in that "states rights" position and unwilling to expand the power of the federal government.

It's not bad analogy, but your bad reasoning.

I know rape is illegal in Puerto Rico, that's why I said "for the sake of argument, let's say..." If you're not able to process that little, why are we talking at all? What if we replace "rape" with let's say "abortion"? For the sake of argument let's say that Puerto Rico is joining US as 51st state and per your "popular sovereignty" doctrine wants to keep their criminal abortion statute that prohibits abortion for reasons other than protecting the woman’s life. That is clearly in conflict with Roe v Wade, but hey, it's their decision to make. Right? No, you lefties would beat them into submission to drop the statute before they get admitted to the Union.

So you adjusted your analogy to a better one and then undermined it with a speculation fallacy.

But just for the sake of describing what "popular sovereignty" means, which does not permit your conclusion leap, yes it could work that way. Given Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, the hypothetical PR law would have to go bye-bye as a condition of statehood, so if a "popular sovereignty" were in effect, PR could choose to keep its law, as could any other entering state. And that's a "states rights", small government position.

Any version of such a "popular sovereignty" does not, and can not, presume what the various states' individual decisions would be. There's no sure way to tell if a future Montana or a future Arizona was going to be sympathetic to Slavery or not, but given the trends of the time, with the peculiar institution going down all over the Americas and under fire from within the US, the pro-Slavery section (the South) saw its influence likely dwindling as those new states came in,, which is both why they rejected Douglas AND why they seceded to form their own country where they wouldn't lose that influence. For that matter it's why they also kicked the Democratic Party convention out of Charleston in 1860 because "popular sovereignty" just wasn't going to go far enough for their ambitions.

In other words "popular sovereignty" was a crapshoot, and the South didn't like their odds in it.

Analogy is the same, different issue. My point is still the same.

It doesn't matter what issue is, the "popular sovereignty" doctrine doesn't mean you are against the issue. If you are open to option of slavery, you are pro-slavery oriented. Northern Democrats were willing to accept slavery in new territories, that means they were open to slavery if new states choose so. Since they were not against slavery, as Republicans were, that means they were pro-slavery.