 |
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
No it hasn't. The Republican Party is not for slavery, for segregation, or for States Rights in the sense that the South was for Stated Rights. The Republican party is for private enterprise, for patriotism and for a foreign policy designed to spread democracy, for family rights and for more conservative social practices, and for freedom of religion. Most Southerners today identify with the Republicans because they agree with these core issues.
You should also understand that the Republican Party was always in favor of civil rights legislation while the Democrat Party opposed it. Johnson allied with Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate, to get the Civil Rights act of 1964 through the Democrat filibuster lead by Al Gore's dad.
Democrats are truly fond of rewriting history to somehow paint themselves as holier than thou, when in truth, the history of that party has largely been despicable. |
what i'm referring to is that republicans were once radical.
then after the civil war, they became the establishment.
for a long time, the democrats had nothing. they provided nothing.
they splintered into dixiecrats and northern democrats. it is the dixiecrats who opposed civil rights legislation.
it is now the democrats who are more radical.
besides, until recently, the impression the republicans gave was always somewhat... frosty... to minorities, even if that wasn't the intention.
===
quote:
Well, vote for John McCain then -- or Colin Powell if he runs. |
still not a republican at heart. i disagree with over half of their platform; i'll stay independent.
so soon after our argument over reagan, too. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
Ask Saddam or bin Laden, who is more radical, Bush or Clinton?
Last edited by Ned on 18-12-2003 at 08:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
GePap,
This is actually a very positive thing.
Although I still believe that secession was and is Constitutional. |
How about expulsion? Now there would be an exciting idea!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
[W]e may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits....
Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?"
|
There was a great deal of hope in the south that the Dred Scott case would do exactly that, negate the rights of the free states to outlaw slavery within their borders. In the summary of the case the Supreme Court however made it very clear that the decision should not in any way be construed as interfering with the rights of states to make slavery unlawful. Undismayed southern lawyers filed a number of lawsuits which sought to use Dred Scott as a means to overturn free state laws abolishing slavery. They were resolutely turned away by the Supreme Court, and southern newspapers bristled with cries of betrayal. Incredible as it seems both sides eventually felt betrayed by the Dredd Scott decision.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:32
|
|
have you taken your historiography. I DON'Tt want to have to spank you again. Unless you like that. err...ezpecially not if you like it.
Last edited by TCO on 18-12-2003 at 08:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned,
It doesn't take much to see that the parties have largely switched sides. This is because the traditional Southern Democrats, i.e., the Dixiecrats, began leaving the party in opposition to its support for Civil Rights and started joining the Republicans when Nixon trotted out his Southern Strategy. The Republican Party of today is dominated by largely unreconstructed segregationists.
Interesting factoid I read in Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, the Christian Coalition controls the party apparatus of the Republican Party in 44 states. |
Which is it, Che, the segregationists or the Christians who control the party - or, is it your contention that the Christians are segregationists?
The truth is that there are no more segregationists. That issue is settled as is slavery.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-12-2003 01:02
|