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 Trump’s 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 parliamentarian’s ruling following my abdication. Like the vast majority of Americans, I’ve 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.
Nonsense!
There is a central element missing from Lincoln's character that could ever lump him in with the klan - animus. Lincoln held no animus, no rancor toward the black man. He believed - as everyone one else of the time - that the black man was innately inferior to the white man, and that inferiority would result in difficulties for blacks living with whites in any sort of equal fashion. Despite that his deeds proved him willing to allow blacks a chance at the American dream.
Lincoln was never anything like the klan.
There were no abolitionist inthe south by the 1850s. They had all been run out. To be an abolitionist in the south was to risk your life.
I think that well before the rebellion there was a third category which believed that slavery was wrong and blacks held as slaves should be freed and could make it on their own, but also subscribed to the belief that even so whites were superior to blacks and integration of the races was not necessarily a good thing. Likewise ridiculous by our current day standards, which is why people of the period shouldn’t be judged by current day standards.
I know it is hard to believe but many 19th century slave owners actually cared a great deal about their slaves and actually liked them as people. This situation was not that uncommon, especially in the upper South.
If you object to millions of illegals flooding into the country you’re a racist.
If you notice black neighborhoods are more violent and criminal than ANY other ethnic community you’re a racist.
If you speak the truth about race you’re a racist...
If you disagree with a democrat you’re a racist...
********************
...and if you support and agree with Our President you’re a racist..
President Lyndon B. Johnson on “Negroes”... Johnson WAS A DEMOCRAT - AND RUMORED TO BE A KKK MEMBER. The ‘Morning Joe Historian’ needs to read some history...
President Johnson (democrat): “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again. [Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957
Bill Clinton to Ted Kennedy: “A few years ago, this guy (Obama) would be getting us coffee.”
A nice summation though there was one other group, albeit very small. The radical abolitionist, such as William Lloyd Garrison, who did believe in total equality between the races. They would be the only ones not considered racist by today’s standards.
Laws requiring segregation and laws specifically designed to make it impossible for free Blacks to earn a living.....as well as social practices supporting the same ie Whites refusing to work alongside Blacks, was a Northern thing, not a Southern practice. De Tocqueville commented on it several times.
The fact that Lincoln was against slavery puts him morally above most of the people in the south and the north at the time.
“I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.”
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862
I agree that pretty much everybody in the 19th century would be a flaming racist by today’s standards. But it sure does seem “odd” that Northern sympathizers only see sweet reason on this when it comes to attacks on Northerners for not living up to 21st century standards of morality. When that same ridiculous rationale was used to attack Southerners of the 19th century by PCers they were either silent or actively sided with the PCers
Once again we have stumbled upon a topic you know little about and have done no research on.
De Tocqueville commented on it several times.
De Tocqueville's book was published 25 years before the rebellion.
Southern owned and operated ships participated in the slave trade until it became illegal in 1808. It was not just the “New England” slave trade. In later years, you are correct, New England was a major player in the slave trade.
True a majority of whites did not own slave. A majority of Southern whites were small farmers, shop owners, laborers, etc.. But most of them were not working on the big plantations, building railroads or working in factories.
In 1860, Tredegar Iron Works, (largest manufacturer in the South), over 40% of its labor was slave labor. A common practice in Southern manufacturing operations. The basic fact is that 4 million slaves were employed in the South and no one in the South was working to change that system.
Some would say they fought a war to try and keep it that way.
As long as vast money could be made off of slave labor in the Cotton Kingdom it would have remained until it became unprofitable to grow cotton with slaves. Slavery would have ended eventually in the South, but that end was decades away.
What you say is true, but it appears to be a very patronizing kind of caring. One thing that has surprised me in reading letters and diaries from slave holding families of the time is how much they believed their own propaganda. I’ve read plenty of accounts of the masters and mistress’s expressing hurt and betrayal when their slaves ran off as soon as the Union army got near.
One account that sticks with me is a mistress that has the slaves hide the valuables as the Union army approached. Then when the Army showed up those same slaves immediately told the Soldieres where she has hid the valuables.
It was known as that “peculiar institution” for a reason.
Once again my knowledge of the subject vastly exceeds yours.
Yes De Tocqueville’s Democracy In America was published a generation earlier. So what? The observations he makes were true.
LOL! I think not.
New England DOMINATED the slave trade - all levels of it from the sailors to the boatbuilders to the financiers of it.
A majority of Southern Whites were not working in factories but is there any reason to believe they were not a large majority of doctors workers? It is notable that the most industrialized Southern states had the lowest percentage of slaves as a share of total population and had the highest percentages of free Blacks as a percentage of the total Black population. Industrialization was having the same effect there that it had elsewhere - ie it was killing off slavery.
They certainly did not fight a war to preserve slavery. Slavery was not threatened in the US and if anybody thought it was, the Northern dominated Congress passed and the President signed a constitutional amendment which would have protected slavery effectively forever. Lincoln endorsed it in his inaugural address. The original 7 seceding states turned it down.
In projecting the future of slavery, you are ignoring enforcement costs. Slavery can only remain viable so long as there is effective enforcement to recapture/deter runaways. As Lincoln pointed out, by leaving the Southern states would no longer be protected by the fugitive slave clause of the constitution. Any slave fleeing into the US would be free. It is a breakdown in enforcement which caused slavery to rapidly collapse in Brazil.
LOL! I know so!
To paraphrase the Great Reagan, “It isn’t so much that bird-brain is ignorant. It’s just that he knows so many things that aren’t so.”
As usual rocks in his head shoes up to spew his idiocy.
What a bunch of butt-uglies there. Inside ugly, which is far worse than outside ugly, for certain.
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.