Skip to comments.Reminder: Democrats ran the KKK, started the Civil War, celebrated slavery and fought against
Posted on 07/29/2019 8:44:07 AM PDT by ransomnote
click here to read article
I didn't follow Goldwater's career closely, but seems to me he ended up less than socially conservative.
In that regard I might mention Mayor Pete, opposition to evangelicals (said he will "fight them every step of the way"), support for legalized marijuana & abortion.
In 1989 he said the Republican party had been taken over by "a bunch of kooks" -- referring to evangelicals.
Some say his second wife was somehow responsible...
So far as I know, Goldwater was always solid on national defense (well, except for Mayor Pete), with the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols act passing 383-27 in the House, 95-0 in the Senate.
Goldwater did oppose reckless foreign adventures, even Ronald Reagan's 1982 mining of Nicaraguan harbors.
In 1960, Goldwater wrote the book, Conscience of a Conservative, but I think he missed a key point that helps define American conservative today.
For Americans, the word conservative means not just the Constitution, but also the Bible, and not necessarily in that order.
In the end, Goldwater's conscience was more libertarian than conservative.
Goldwater was always as much libertarian as he was conservative. Other influences on his “social views” late in his life. He had a gay activist grandson who he doted over & his nurse\caretaker in his last years was very liberal.
While I do not want to touch off one of these divisive debates, which divert attention away the more immediate issues in today's politics, there is a palpable, if implied, fallacy in your argument, yesterday, which should at least deserve a more than passing comment.
The propensity of politicians (Left, Right or just eager for attention) to jump on bandwagons, can never justify the notion that basic moral or legal questions should simply be determined by "counting noses." The idea that Government should have the right to forbid citizens, able to afford to hire others with their own funds, from exercising their preferences for their kith & kin, or people who share their theological views or a common history, is not validated in respect to our cultural insights by politicians' climbing on bandwagons.
Abe Lincoln clearly started the war by sending a fleet of warships with orders to fire upon the confederates if they did not obey his will to keep a garrison in Ft. Sumter.
So far as I know, Jewish bankers had not a D@mn thing to do with it, but Wealthy, White, Rich, Privileged, Liberal Captains of Industry from New York and the North East clearly recognized that they would be heavily damaged or perhaps destroyed financially if the South was allowed to engage in European trade without their control.
This is why they offered the South the ultimate protection for slavery when they passed the Corwin Amendment with only Northern state votes.
Bravo! “moderate, midwestern, Democrats”... the GOPe described rather well.
Think of them like insurance agents from Kansas— only want subscribers and rate payers... just like dems want other “subscribed” extra sources of “revenue” for “investment” (words bill c. used to describe massive tax increases for “govt.” investment.)
Govt. doesn’t invest, if it did, what would be its expected capital “gain”— So investment means “throw money at it”- the payola... patronage, and both “parties” participate.
Which he explicitly had no right to do since our own nation was founded on God given right to independence.
He did not really care about preserving the Union. What he cared about is preserving the New York POWER CORRIDOR control of Southern economic output. That's why he and they supported and passed the Corwin amendment, making slavery effectively permanent and unassailable.
Lincoln offered to let all the initial seceded states go if Virginia would pledge to remain, so no, despite all the hype that has been spread about "preserving the Union", Lincoln was willing to see it break up so long as he kept power over the more significant portion of it.
and them orders the salves freed.
Which only a dictator could do. US Law protected the rights of slave owners to own slaves. Ordering them freed was defiance of existing law.
He also did not order them freed out of the milk of human kindness. He ordered them freed to give him political power by disenfranchising all the whites, and granting voting rights to all the blacks. This is how his party got even more power.
It's always about money and power. It is *NEVER* about morality, kindness, or decency. Washington DC is about forcing money out of everyone to be used for the benefit of the wealthy and privileged who are connected to the system of governance.
Tax and Spend Liberal Lincoln was the man who broke our system of governance.
And Lincoln declared them to be in "rebellion", but what they did and were doing was clearly not "rebellion", it was "Independence", which they had a right to have as stipulated in our own founding document, the "Declaration of Independence."
Lincoln accused them of rebellion in the same way modern Democrats accuse Trump of racism. They simply say it is so, and they repeat it over and over until the public accepts this claim.
That would require a constitutional amendment, something he often called for and worked to pass once the election of 1864 gave him the congressional majority that it would require.
You are correct that it would require a constitutional amendment, but such a thing was impossible in the 1860s without an end run around the valid constitutional amendment process.
This end run was accomplished by first illegally disenfranchising voters in their own states, and then threatening the legislature with even further military abuses of their population if they did not give Washington DC what they were ordered to give.
A lot of people want to pretend that the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th amendments were valid amendments to the constitution, but the constitution was never intended to be changed through Washington DC control of puppet governments that would do the bidding of Washington DC.
That is dictatorship with a thin veneer of "process" slapped on it to disguise what was done.
Oh shut up.
Lincoln started that war by sending warships to force his will on people who wanted to be independent.
No Poindexter, you don’t tell the truth and you get shellacked for being out in left field all the time. Try getting your head around this: The South lost.
No it didn’t. LBJ had to turn to Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirkson (R.Ill.) to get the bill passed.
I used to believe it myself, but real truth, such as Lincoln urging passage of the Corwin Amendment, kept getting in the way.
Why had I never previously heard of this war fleet sent to force Charleston to accept a Union garrison at the entrance of their harbor?
I consider this bit of information quite important in understanding what happened, but in all the years of my life, until just a few years ago, I had never heard of it.
Why do they want to keep this aggression secret? Why isn't it taught?
Clearly it isn't taught because the powers that be don't want people to get the idea that Lincoln actually triggered the war himself, and did so deliberately.
And that is why no one has ever heard of this war fleet that Lincoln ordered into Charleston, thereby triggering the Confederate attack on Sumter.
It makes it look like Lincoln started it.
Again, my relevant Chapter on the issue is "Civil Rights" vs. Civil Liberties.
Because you weren't paying attention? Because it was right there all along.
Once again, spoken like a true (and avid) anti-American.
I've taken US history classes in High school and College, and this fleet of ships was never mentioned in any of the classes or the textbooks. I would have noticed because it greatly clarifies why the Confederates opened fire on the fort. That is something that never made sense to me before, and I had always heard it was attributed to them simply being hot heads that wanted a war.
The story of these warships sent to force Charleston to obey Lincoln is curious because of it's omission. One has to go looking for it to find it, but before one can look, one must first have heard of it.
America was founded on the right to independence. Denying this right is anti-American.
So you begin your post with a total lie (note your addressee list) and yet you expect anyone to believe the rest of it?
Ohioan: "The idea that Government should have the right to forbid citizens, able to afford to hire others with their own funds, from exercising their preferences for their kith & kin, or people who share their theological views or a common history, is not validated in respect to our cultural insights by politicians' climbing on bandwagons. "
Sure, that was the argument by opponents of the 1965 Civil Rights Act at the time, including, as listed by Pelham above: Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan & WF Buckley.
But most, including Buckley, later came to regret their opposition to such 1960s era laws.
So, it turns out that the only long-term opposition came from erstwhile Southern Democrats who now form some of the Republican political base.
The media has that effect on people. You brow beat people long enough, and you can convince people like George HW Bush to break his promise and raise taxes.
You can convince John McCain that Sarah Palin cost him the election.
You can convince much of the public that Trump pointing out Baltimore is a rat infested sh*thole is "racist."
The media have too much power in this nation, and that power badly needs to be broken.
Again, here is what I suggest is far, far more relevant:
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.