Posted on 07/21/2017 2:08:41 PM PDT by impetrio1
Only certain people get to make the potential big money productions in Hollywood and they have ways to get around anything potentially uncomfortable. HBO-Game of Thrones' David Benioff and D.B. Weiss are going to make a TV movie surrounding the Confederacy and slavery.
These things have to be handled delicately and in this case, all it took was a cheap meal to get the ball rolling.
(Excerpt) Read more at blackandblondemedia.com ...
There is no place more appropriate for DiogeneseLamp to post than on a thread dealing with alternate history.
DiogeneseLamp = DiogenesLamp. My apologies for the misspelling
As they take down all the Confederate statues, remember, what you are seeing is Democrats taking down statues of Democrats.
And alternate reality.
They DO "teach" it...they just tell kids the two parties "switched". The slaveowners are now Republicans.
This thing is getting slaughtered by all sides of the political spectrum. Watch it be a hit....lol. Controversy is the best thing for a movie or tv show.
AMEN
Well if they had just stayed in the Union, slavery would have been permanent. If they hadn't tried to escape Washington, the United States would probably still have legal slavery.
Sorta makes you think that Lincoln really didn't fight the war over slavery.
Nonsense. Your stuff isn't new, and it certainly isn't true. It's what Americans were being taught for decades in the interests of "national unity."
Well I don't know about you, but when I went to school, nobody ever taught us that Lincoln sent a war fleet to Charleston with orders to attack the Confederates.
I never learned anything about that war fleet until the last two years. I also didn't know Lincoln was going to make slavery permanent if he could just keep control over the Southern states. They didn't teach us that in school either.
Would say you went to School in the 50s as I did. Oh what a bunch of dummies we are.
It was, in fact, a real possibility. Lincoln announced in his inaugural address that he would agree to the "Corwin Amendment." The Corwin Amendment would have made it virtually impossible to eliminate slavery before the 20th century.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
But this is a part of history that they refuse to tell people about.
That's a gross distortion worthy of the modern media. There is one quote where before the south began hostilities Lincoln said if he could save the union by abolishing slavery he would do so, and if he could save the union by keeping it he would do that. That's like media saying Trump's statement that if Putin had Hillary's missing emails he should release them proves "collusion". There was no deal, Lincoln was making the point that saving the union was his top priority.
The shift began earlier with Roosevelt and the New Deal.
The shift began earlier, but I have seen graphs of black voter registration from the 1960s and later, and they may have started moving during the Roosevelt era, but they switched completely in the seven years after 1964.
I have no issue with what you said other than to point out that the switchover was relatively rapid after 1964. Yes, it began during Roosevelt, but it accelerated massively after 1964.
What we have been taught is an alternate history. I'm simply trying to make people aware of the parts of history that the winners deliberately leave out.
The parts that make them less noble. The parts that show them to be far more vicious and evil.
“The shift began earlier, but I have seen graphs of black voter registration from the 1960s and later, and they may have started moving during the Roosevelt era, but they switched completely in the seven years after 1964.”
I think this is correct.
But, I was surprised when I learned how much had shifted prior to the 60’s.
There is more than one quote where he said he would keep slavery. In his first inaugural address, he said:
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
He also said:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
So is it a gross distortion to say that Lincoln was going to make a deal to keep slavery permanently?
I don't think so. It seems pretty clear from his own words when he gave his first speech as President.
Alternate reality is what we have been taught. People think the Union went to war to free slaves. They don't realize the Union actually went to war to create more slaves.
We've all been enslaved to the leviathan in Washington D.C. ever since. Nowadays we call it "the establishment."
I was pointing out that 1932 was the last Presidential election in which the GOP received a majority of the Black vote. 1960 was the last in which they got over 15% of the Black vote.
The fictitious claim we see around here that “MLK Jr. was a Republican” is easily debunked when you consider he willfully led the remaining non-Democrat Black voters into their party in 1960 with his endorsement of JFK (despite Nixon being pro-Civil Rights) and in 1964 for LBJ (again, despite Goldwater being pro-Civil Rights, but opposing the ‘64 CRA for being a drastic and unconstitutional overreach by the government). MLK devastating and falsely labeled Goldwater and Conservatives as “tools of Southern White racists.”
What Goldwater predicted about the CRA has come to pass. It is now a tool of abuse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.