Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Lincoln himself talked about it:
DoodleDawg: "As well as the fact that Constitution is meaningless unless you want to abide by it."
Demonstrating yet again one of the first rules of being a Democrat (I hesitate to guess which is the first rule, so "one of"): you care nothing for constitutional or legal niceties unless they can be used to bludgeon Republicans.
This sounds like the opening gambit of the affable but muddleheaded D’Souza.
He seeks to leave the impression the Republican Party in Washington is the way to go because no Republicans ever supported Jim Crow, or de facto segregation, or de jure segregation in Topeka, Kansas, or segregation in the U.S. Armed Forces, or opposed Johnson’s 1964 civil rights act, or Johnson’s 1965 voting rights act, or Johnson’s 1967 open housing law.
He thinks telling this narrative will have liberals streaming to the polls to pull a straight Republican ticket. I don't know how it works where he comes from but in the U.S., that uneven story is not going to be an easy sell.
Telling the truth would serve D’Souza and conservatism better.
In that regard the Confederate Constitution was not that different from the U.S.
As I recall the slave states, and the erstwhile slave states, and the free states in the United States never introduced a proposed amendment to abolish slavery during the decades prior to Lincoln's War. Never even tried.
And for good reason: it was not thought to be in their economic and political best self-interest.
“What was the Confederate Congress and the President of the Confederacy doing. They were safe and secure in Richmond, far away from most of those battlefields.”
You seem to be drawing here a distinction between the operations of Confederate Congress and the U.S. Congress; and I’m not following your thinking.
Can you tell us more about how the U.S. Congress roamed the battlefields and took the heights of Fredericksburg?
“As well as the fact that Constitution is meaningless unless you want to abide by it.”
When every champion of Lincoln’s War makes this declaration, and fully understands how the hideous leviathan in Washington today was licensed by the disaster at Appomattox, my work will be done.
In other words, when we all turn into brain-dead morons and sign on to your absurd opinions on the Southern rebellion your work will be done? If so, I suspect that your work will be going on for some time.
If you want to bring the U.S. Congress into it then about the only parallel was that both were safe behind the lines while their armies were fighting at Fredericksburg. If you want to highlight the difference then it would be the U.S. Congress was following the requirements of the Constitution and the Confederate Congress, and Davis, did not.
If you accept Pat Buchanan as some sort of expert on the Southern Rebellion.
Any port in a storm...
“The South had provided for the creation of a SC in their constitution. But first they had to defeat McDowell at the first battle of Manassas.
Then they had to defeat McClellan.
Then they had to defeat Pope.
Then they had to fight McClellan, again.
Then they had to defeat Burnside.
Then they had to defeat Hooker.”
None of which the Confederate Congress was directly involved in. What occupied their time so much that they could not establish a Supreme Court.
I note again your most curious animus towards Dinesh D'Souza, almost as if you yourself take personal offense at his truth telling about Democrats.
Were Republicans ever guilty of such crimes?
Well, Republicans certainly were guilty of surrendering to Democrat demands in 1876 to withdraw Federal troops from former Confederate States, thus allowing white Southerners to become what they most wanted to be -- Jim Crow, black codes, KKK enforcement, etc.
Still, for many decades most African-Americans voted Republican, so one must suppose we were the lesser of those two evils.
You disagree?
jeffersondem: "Telling the truth would serve D’Souza and conservatism better."
I think D'Souza is a great truth-teller and jeffersondem could learn a lot about it from him.
Demojeff shows a curious animus toward all things American.
In more recent decades most African-Americans voted Democrat, so one must suppose . . .
Let's stop right there. Your suppositions just won't hold up.
You and D’Souza should leave playing the Race Card to Brother Sharpton and the professional, white Race Card players at SPLC.
A better narrative to promote conservatism: the 10th amendment, the 10 commandments, and Jesus’ Golden Rule.
There is no telling how many voters, black and white, Republicans could attract if the party distinguished right from wrong and proclaimed the difference.
No, not just "supposition", it's a simple fact: today African-Americans consider Democrats, at worst, the lesser of two evils and at best the party which best represents their interests.
But for many decades after 1865 Democrats were correctly understood to be the party of slavery, secession, Civil War, black codes, Jim Crow, KKK-type enforcers, etc., etc.
During those decades blacks correctly understood Republicans were the party of emancipation, abolition, freedom & full citizenship, etc.
Those are facts, not "suppositions" or muddleheaded D'Souza mistakes.
jeffersondem: "You and D’Souza should leave playing the Race Card to Brother Sharpton and the professional, white Race Card players at SPLC."
Sorry, FRiend, but that "race card" is all yours -- you own it, you defend it, you play it every time you post lies supporting the Confederacy and Southern Democrats.
jeffersondem: "A better narrative to promote conservatism: the 10th amendment, the 10 commandments, and Jesus’ Golden Rule."
Sure, and also the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, all as originally intended.
jeffersondem: "There is no telling how many voters, black and white, Republicans could attract if the party distinguished right from wrong and proclaimed the difference."
Sure, but "right from wrong" cannot, will not ever include defending 1860s era slavers' war of secession or post 1876 white-supremacists' Jim Crow, etc., period, full stop, end of the line for you buddy, if you can't quite figure that out.
Supposition is defined as “the act of supposing.”
Do you remember who introduced, and built an argument around, the word “suppose” in this thread?
Hint: “Still, for many decades most African-Americans voted Republican, so one must suppose we were the lesser of those two evils.”
It took you exactly one post to repudiate your own words.
No, just one word: "suppose", that thought should have been expressed more strongly.
So can I take it, while you're straining at the "supposed" gnat, you fully accept the rest of my posts?
If so, that's fine, I'll agree, you can have "suppose" and I'll take everything else.
Deal?
Or are you still on the prod to chivvy this mess & gom into your tally-book?
Beautiful, clear, concise poetry. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Your education was worth every penny spent.
That is an interesting comment - especially your preferences for including certain years and excluding certain years.
The chair now recognizes the Gentleman John Hancock from the slave state of Massachusetts for the purpose of rebutting the proposition that slave states can not morally secede from the empire.
Following, the chair will recognize the Gentleman Benjamin Franklin from the slave state of Pennsylvania for the purpose of rebutting the proposition that slave states can not morally secede from the empire.
Following, the chair will recognize the Gentleman William Floyd from the slave state of New York for . . . the same purpose.
Following, the chair will recognize . . . from the slave states of Delaware, New Jersey, and New Hampshire . . .
Following the chair will recognize . . . from the slave states of Connecticut and Rhode Island . . . and so forth and so on.
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.