USMB: Where did the Conservative Republicans who freed the slaves come from?

[PredFan]

Far right so-called reactionary 'conservatives' today know the truth: that conservatives in the South tried break up the Union and keep their slaves forever. The West and the North said and enforced "no."

Wait a second there High Speed. That sounds like a progressive reaction. And slavery existed because field machines didn't, unlike the industrial north. Economics played a huge role in the south and north, pretending otherwise is just ignorant.

Jakey isn't a smart man.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No field machines in Europe at the same time, podjo.

Your straw man just burned up.

You must be smoking one. Europe had slavery, probably from day one. They are also very populated compared to here, especially in the 1700's. And they weren't growing cotton, which requires a lot of room peryeild and the manpower to harvest it. I guess you'll ignore anything to hold onto your beliefs.

Slavery was replaced by serfdom in the west by 900 CE and after, and with the rise of the nation states in the 15th and 16th centuries, serfdom disappeared in the West and more slowly in the East, as exemplified in Russia.

In other words, long before the first industrial revolution begins in the middle of the 18th century, slavery does not exist in Europe.

Google disappearance of slavery in Europe - Bing and do some general reading.

 

[PredFan]

1. Dean is a moron.
2. The Republicans in Lincoln's time weren't conservative.
3. The democrats in Lincoln's time weren't liberal.
4. Today's liberals and conservatives have nothing to do with slavery.
5. This thread is another rdean fail.

 

[Iceweasel]

Slavery was replaced by serfdom in the west by 900 CE and after, and with the rise of the nation states in the 15th and 16th centuries, serfdom disappeared in the West and more slowly in the East, as exemplified in Russia.

In other words, long before the first industrial revolution begins in the middle of the 18th century, slavery does not exist in Europe.

Yes, because serfdom was so much better than slavery. And England had slaves up until just before it was outlawed here.

 

[rdean]

1. Dean is a moron.
2. The Republicans in Lincoln's time weren't conservative.
3. The democrats in Lincoln's time weren't liberal.
4. Today's liberals and conservatives have nothing to do with slavery.
5. This thread is another rdean fail.

Then go ahead and explain it to us. Since Republicans assume all Democrats to be liberals and no Republicans are liberals and USMB Republicans think conservatives freed the slaves and Lincoln must have been a confederate, tell us how it really was.

 

[rdean]

See what happens when you call out Republican beliefs? They get so angry they can't defend their own beliefs. Hence, the "anger".

 

[FlemishMaster]

1. Dean is a moron.
2. The Republicans in Lincoln's time weren't conservative.
3. The democrats in Lincoln's time weren't liberal.
4. Today's liberals and conservatives have nothing to do with slavery.
5. This thread is another rdean fail.

That sounds about right.

 

[PredFan]

1. Dean is a moron.
2. The Republicans in Lincoln's time weren't conservative.
3. The democrats in Lincoln's time weren't liberal.
4. Today's liberals and conservatives have nothing to do with slavery.
5. This thread is another rdean fail.

Then go ahead and explain it to us. Since Republicans assume all Democrats to be liberals and no Republicans are liberals and USMB Republicans think conservatives freed the slaves and Lincoln must have been a confederate, tell us how it really was.

I already explained it, nit wit.

 

[Picaro]

Technology and the invention of machinery rendered slavery inefficient.
While the cotton gin initially grew slavery considerably, it's invention paved the way by showing that machines could do the work of many people, and not sneak into your house at night and slit your throat.
Slavery would have ended on it's own.

Except that the geography of the Cotton South wasn't conducive to the kinds of reapers and machinery that worked well on the prairies and wheat fields of the Midwest and plains states. Machinery for reaping cotton wasn't effectively developed until the late 1940's, wherein it produced massive unemployment among blacks and whites and the economic consequences caused the onset of the Civil Rights movements of the late 1940's and 1950's.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No field machines in Europe at the same time, podjo.

Your straw man just burned up.

You must be smoking one. Europe had slavery, probably from day one. They are also very populated compared to here, especially in the 1700's. And they weren't growing cotton, which requires a lot of room peryeild and the manpower to harvest it. I guess you'll ignore anything to hold onto your beliefs.

Slavery was replaced by serfdom in the west by 900 CE and after, and with the rise of the nation states in the 15th and 16th centuries, serfdom disappeared in the West and more slowly in the East, as exemplified in Russia.

In other words, long before the first industrial revolution begins in the middle of the 18th century, slavery does not exist in Europe.

Google disappearance of slavery in Europe - Bing and do some general reading.

I recommend both "1491" and "1493" by Charles Mann, they both clearly define Europe's role in the slave trade.

 

[Picaro]

The Civil War wasn't about slavery, for either side, and all the educated leaders on all sides of the parties involved knew that the Cotton Kingdom had already reached its geographical limits by 1845-50, and wasn't going to expand. Daniel Webster knew this when the battle of the Wilmot Proviso was being argued; it didn't matter whether or not New Mexico or any other western state was a 'slave' or 'free' state, since the issue was moot; slavery wasn't economically feasible outside the cotton industry.

It wasn't feasible in the industrial North because it was cheaper to just let your workers starve or die from disease during economic slow downs than keep feeding and sheltering them; they could easily be replaced by immigrants at any time. In fact, white labor was valued less than slaves in the South as well; Irish and German labor was used in clearing the swamps and building the levees along the Mississippi, and the most dangerous jobs on the docks; slaves were too valuable, while the Irish and German laborers could simply be left where they fell and died, and covered over as building and filling progressed; nobody would miss them. The levees have tens of thousands of skeletons in them of these laborers.

The Civil War was about money, changing the tax structure and funding of the Federal government, tariffs, and railroad routes, along with massive corporate welfare programs for northern manufacturers and huge land giveaways to railroads, the Homestead Act, Morrill Tariff Acts, and where the continental railroad and its branches would run to and from. This would have put a far larger tax burden on the South than the North, with no offsetting benefits whatsoever. There were slave states in the Union as well, and Northern armies took strong steps to keep 'free' blacks from fleeing North as the Union armies moved south, so I don't know where the Yankees get off claiming to be 'Great Liberators'; they weren't even close to that.

 

[Nosmo King]

The problem is one of not understanding the difference between political party and political ideology. Today's Conservative will hide behind the skirts of party name when inconvenient history is discussed. They will claim it was Democrats (as in members of the Democrat party) who formed and caroused as the Ku Klux Klan. that is true. But those Democrats were no where near Liberal in political ideology and philosophy. Those Democrats were much closer to the tenets of Conservative ideology.

Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were much closer to today's Liberal ideology.

Using the cover of political party while denying philosophy is a cowardly, if not merely ignorant act.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem is one of not understanding the difference between political party and political ideology. Today's Conservative will hide behind the skirts of party name when inconvenient history is discussed. They will claim it was Democrats (as in members of the Democrat party) who formed and caroused as the Ku Klux Klan. that is true. But those Democrats were no where near Liberal in political ideology and philosophy. Those Democrats were much closer to the tenets of Conservative ideology.

Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were much closer to today's Liberal ideology.

Using the cover of political party while denying philosophy is a cowardly, if not merely ignorant act.

"You tell 'em, Peckerwood!"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem is one of not understanding the difference between political party and political ideology. Today's Conservative will hide behind the skirts of party name when inconvenient history is discussed. They will claim it was Democrats (as in members of the Democrat party) who formed and caroused as the Ku Klux Klan. that is true. But those Democrats were no where near Liberal in political ideology and philosophy. Those Democrats were much closer to the tenets of Conservative ideology.

Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were much closer to today's Liberal ideology.

Using the cover of political party while denying philosophy is a cowardly, if not merely ignorant act.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS pick Thurgood Marshall

 

[Nosmo King]

The problem is one of not understanding the difference between political party and political ideology. Today's Conservative will hide behind the skirts of party name when inconvenient history is discussed. They will claim it was Democrats (as in members of the Democrat party) who formed and caroused as the Ku Klux Klan. that is true. But those Democrats were no where near Liberal in political ideology and philosophy. Those Democrats were much closer to the tenets of Conservative ideology.

Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were much closer to today's Liberal ideology.

Using the cover of political party while denying philosophy is a cowardly, if not merely ignorant act.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS pick Thurgood Marshall

There were a lot of Democrats who held racist views. They were predominately from the south. Democrats like LBJ and Wallace and Stennis and Thurmond.

But that (D) behind their names did not make them Liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Picaro]

The problem is one of not understanding the difference between political party and political ideology. Today's Conservative will hide behind the skirts of party name when inconvenient history is discussed. They will claim it was Democrats (as in members of the Democrat party) who formed and caroused as the Ku Klux Klan. that is true. But those Democrats were no where near Liberal in political ideology and philosophy. Those Democrats were much closer to the tenets of Conservative ideology.

Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were much closer to today's Liberal ideology.

Using the cover of political party while denying philosophy is a cowardly, if not merely ignorant act.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS pick Thurgood Marshall

There were a lot of Democrats who held racist views. They were predominately from the south. Democrats like LBJ and Wallace and Stennis and Thurmond.

But that (D) behind their names did not make them Liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

Except that LBJ never said that, and when Johnson busted up the Solid South and pushed through the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts the racists like Thurmond ran into the warm and welcoming arms of the Republican Party and lived there happily ever after.

 

[Picaro]

The problem is one of not understanding the difference between political party and political ideology. Today's Conservative will hide behind the skirts of party name when inconvenient history is discussed. They will claim it was Democrats (as in members of the Democrat party) who formed and caroused as the Ku Klux Klan. that is true. But those Democrats were no where near Liberal in political ideology and philosophy. Those Democrats were much closer to the tenets of Conservative ideology.

Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were much closer to today's Liberal ideology.

Using the cover of political party while denying philosophy is a cowardly, if not merely ignorant act.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS pick Thurgood Marshall

Frank likes to spread his Commie disinformation around no matter what the topic. A true fellow traveller like his hero McCarthy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem is one of not understanding the difference between political party and political ideology. Today's Conservative will hide behind the skirts of party name when inconvenient history is discussed. They will claim it was Democrats (as in members of the Democrat party) who formed and caroused as the Ku Klux Klan. that is true. But those Democrats were no where near Liberal in political ideology and philosophy. Those Democrats were much closer to the tenets of Conservative ideology.

Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were much closer to today's Liberal ideology.

Using the cover of political party while denying philosophy is a cowardly, if not merely ignorant act.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS pick Thurgood Marshall

There were a lot of Democrats who held racist views. They were predominately from the south. Democrats like LBJ and Wallace and Stennis and Thurmond.

But that (D) behind their names did not make them Liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

You left Bobby Byrd off your list.

I agree with you, modern Liberal are much worse than their racist ancestors; they are much closer to the mass murdering dictators they love, admire and defend

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem is one of not understanding the difference between political party and political ideology. Today's Conservative will hide behind the skirts of party name when inconvenient history is discussed. They will claim it was Democrats (as in members of the Democrat party) who formed and caroused as the Ku Klux Klan. that is true. But those Democrats were no where near Liberal in political ideology and philosophy. Those Democrats were much closer to the tenets of Conservative ideology.

Republicans at the turn of the 20th century were much closer to today's Liberal ideology.

Using the cover of political party while denying philosophy is a cowardly, if not merely ignorant act.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS pick Thurgood Marshall

Frank likes to spread his Commie disinformation around no matter what the topic. A true fellow traveller like his hero McCarthy.

^ How to spot a sock account

 

[Nosmo King]

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." -- LBJ on his SCOTUS pick Thurgood Marshall

There were a lot of Democrats who held racist views. They were predominately from the south. Democrats like LBJ and Wallace and Stennis and Thurmond.

But that (D) behind their names did not make them Liberals by any stretch of the imagination.

You left Bobby Byrd off your list.

I agree with you, modern Liberal are much worse than their racist ancestors; they are much closer to the mass murdering dictators they love, admire and defend

Hyperbole and lies are the watermarks of a weak argument and a weaker mind.