Posted on 07/17/2019 5:17:34 AM PDT by NOBO2012
Did you catch any of the chaos in the House chambers yesterday as the Dems moved to condemn President Trumps tweets? Pelosi was banned from speaking for the day for breaking House rules, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver dropped the gavel.
He issued the following statement, which reads in part:
I want to thank Leader Hoyer for assuming the chair and reading the parliamentarians ruling following my abdication. Like the vast majority of Americans, Ive grown increasingly frustrated with the childish rancor of our public discourse. Our inability to conduct ourselves in a civil and respectable fashion has paralyzed the most powerful government in the history of the world, and for what? A 10-second soundbite on prime time news and a few thousand twitter followers?
Mind you, Rep. Cleaver used to be considered one of the more radical progressive members of the Democratic party. Before the Broad Squad showed up on scene. What a difference a bray makes.
The Dems are moving us dangerously closer to joining the pantheon of countries that routinely break out in parliamentary fisticuffs.
And all because the President put Tweet to the long held sentiment of America: love it or leave it.
I guess da Squad insists that his tweet was racist. Of course they also insisted there was collusion with Russia! Russia! Russia! Or obstruction. Or something.
I should point out that go back to where you came from could mean get out of the way, a phrase President Obama was never shy about using, whether he was talking about the Republicans who drove the car off the cliff getting out of the way so he could clean up the mess, or the Republican Congress getting out of his way so he could shut down Gitmo. Get out of the way only sounds racist if you see everything through a racist lens.
Oh, and remember that time when Abraham Lincoln was a racist?
H/T Cripes Suzette still my favorite of her many awesome photoshops
Posted from: MOTUS A.D.
And you apply presentism only to Lincoln and nobody else. Not at all surprising.
Where have you been for the last 25-30 years when that same standard was applied by PCers to lots of other historical figures?
Not supporting it. Where were you?
But not nearly as much as anyone from the south...
Most states in the North passed Black Codes designed explicitly to prevent Blacks from moving there and attempting to drive out the ones who did live there. For example, Illinois required free Blacks to post a sizable bond before being allowed in - that was more than most had. Also Blacks were barred from voting, sitting on juries, testifying against Whites or signing contracts. On top of that, many Whites refused to work with them. The effect was to make it almost impossible for Blacks to earn a living there - this forcing them out.
I doubt it would have lasted that long. The last holdout in the Western World was Brazil and they ended it around 1882 - just 16 years after the US did.
All Southern states had Black Codes as well. They were meant to keep free blacks from moving in to the state, keep free blacks in the state from getting educations or working in select professions, and making it as hard as possible for slaves to be freed. But I suspect you don't have a problem with those. Either the ones before the rebellion or the ones after.
Or am I practicing "presentism" again?
Oh hardly. You have it exactly backwards. Ive opposed it all along but hey, if thats the standard then it should apply to everybody.
I didnt hear you opposing presentism when Leftists in Academia started applying it to Southerners in the 1980s.
Nope! Utterly false as always .
Southern States adopted Black Codes AFTER emancipation. They modeled their laws on the laws already on the books in the North.
The models of Brazilian slavery and the American flavor were much different. In Brazil, they simply worked slaves to death, then bought a new ship load to replace those lost. By the 1870s the transatlantic slave trade was pretty well shut down. The supply of slaves was drying up.
In the United States, the slave trade ended in 1808. By 1860 there were about 4 million slave in the country. almost all born here. The entire Southern economy depended on slave labor. No only the cash crop agriculture that produced most Southern wealth, but Southern manufacturing was heavily invested in slave labor. Most railroad construction and maintenance was by slave labor. The vast amount of building construction was by slave labor. Most skilled trades were practiced by slaves. In 1860 very few Southerners were the least bit interested in ending the reliance of slave labor in their economy.
It would have die out eventually, but it would have been over many decades, not a few years.
“Lincoln was an open and avowed Racist.”
He was a man of his times.
Not always, In Virginia was illegal for a freed slave to remain in the state. This was in the 1850s. NC also had such a law that predated the war. “Black Codes” were prevalent both in the North and the South.
They had laws on their books worse than anything up North long before the rebellion. Or weren't you aware of that? And they adopted laws meant to keep blacks in a situation as closely resembling slavery as possible after the rebellion.
While I was at the hotel today, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
If held to today's standards any person of the period you care to name would be considered a KKK member.
If your immigrant wife is acting like a B@tch, is it racist to call her a B@tch?
One attitude was that blacks were not really human, they were animals that needed to be coerced into working to get anything useful out of them.
The other attitude was that blacks were human but were childlike and could never survive on their own. They "needed" the institution of slavery to make them viable. Whites were actually "helping" them survive.
Both are totally ridiculous when you look back on it but judging 19th century people by today's stds will give you a very distorted view of history.
The laws on the books in the Southern states requiring strict segregation were not on the books until after emancipation and were modeled on the laws in the Northern states. Didnt you know that?
a good synopsis of the racial views of the mid 19th century.
The New England slave trade officially ended in 1808. Unofficially it carried on on a large scale right up until the war. New England slave traders dominated the market for the entire Western Hemisphere in the 19th century.
I disagree with you that the entire Southern economy depended on slavery labor. A large majority of Whites in the South did not own slaves and they were still making a living, earning money etc. They were obviously doing many of the things you claim slaves were doing.
Slavery was dying out throughout the entire Western world. There is no reason to think industrialization which was already taking hold in the Upper South would not have quickly killed off slavery there just as it did elsewhere. The Southern states were no more immune to the laws of economics than anywhere else.
Laws were on the books long before the rebellion forbidding blacks from getting an education, forbidding free blacks to work in certain professions, forbidding free blacks from living in certain areas, forbidding free blacks from moving into the state, and often forbidding slaves from being emancipated without an act of the state legislature. Didn't you know that?
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.