Posted on 09/22/2010 7:55:54 AM PDT by Michael Zak
On this day in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln (R-IL) issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Effective at yearend, all slaves in Confederate-controlled territory would be "forever free."
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
“Is that what passes for serious argument where you come from?”
Yep.
“So don’t try to tell us the South has always been rock-solid conservative. It’s not true.”
Gee. Now it’s us.
“For example, Lincoln was best known for his anti-slavery arguments, but no one called him a “liberal” or “conservative” because of it — those words weren’t used.”
Lincoln was known for his absolute deep felt whole-hearted belief that blacks were inferior and should be shipped out. Aren’t you the guy who wanted accurate debate?
None of this was necessary and could have been avoided had the South merely freed its slaves in 1860.
Free Republic or Slave Socialist? The Federal Usurpation is being pushed too far for some of us to stand. Do we abandon our “noble experiment” based upon the powerful force of personal liberty and freedom, the principles for which our Republic once stood? Are they misguided? Are they evil? The leftists, of course, believe they have a more spiritual and humane path, wanting (so they say) all Americans to share equally in the wealth, where progressivism can become the only true freedom.
Should we conserve the ideals of a Republic, a Representative Republic, envisioned by the founders of these United States? Do our social and religious beliefs, established mores, our basic economic freedoms, induce enough passion to fight ... and will both sides claim an absolute, moral imperative that each consider unimpeachable and the most righteous cause? This is the stuff of civil wars.
Is the left going to insist theirs is an urgent mission that cannot be put off any longer and continue the cry for social justice, forcing America into the complete and final solution, in which they so fervently believe?
I hope this will nothing but a clash between opposing forces of voters, but it seems too explosive. It is too deep a disagreement, too fundamentally rooted in our respective beliefs in a way of life to which we each are totally committed, Republic or Socialist. We know they can not exist peacefully. There is no history to suggest it.
This is not simply socialist creep, a push from a small number of radicals; it is the rush of the left, abetted by many around the world, to finally end our grand experiment.
Will the resistance to this virulent, leftist imposition of will end in a heated debate and resolution through the ballot box, or will it create a resurgent Free Republic, the mounting of a resistance that forces some of us to become rebels?
FDR was most certainly past a 20 on your scale. He broke the SCOTUS and America’s, until then, resistance to large scale, broadly implemented socialism. (Johnson was a 25 at least - look at the damage he’s done to blacks)
That said, I blame Teddy the most. You’re absolutely correct in that he was just a “little-bit” socialist, but he gave it a veneer of respectability that it never would have had and was a reference point or shield to socialism. He provided cover.
Take a look at a book called: The Myth of the Robber Barons by Burt Folsom
Teddy’s Trust Busting was populist and unnecessary. It granted government a heavy hand in business and rationalized all kinds of invasiveness in human affairs.
Sorry pal, but the South did not secede because Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to Africa.
The South seceded because Lincoln said he wanted to limit -- not abolish -- the advance of slavery into territories and states where it did not already exist.
What Lincoln thought might eventually happen to freed slaves was never mentioned by secessionists in their arguments against the Union.
Pal, I've never questioned your conservative credentials.
I've merely noted that the South as a whole has a long and checkered history of solidly supporting redistributionists, liberals and Democrats -- as long as the money was being redistributed TO the South.
So you don't need to go around claiming that the South is conservatively pure while the North is just corrupt.
It ain't so.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will do that. :-)
There is a big difference between supporting voluntary emigration and forcibly removing. But I sometimes forget that you live in a fantasy world where your confederacy was a sovereign nation and where Lincoln started the war. So some puzzle-headedness on your part is to be expected.
Well bro, thanks for proving what most of us Rebs have always known: that Southerners and damn yankees will never be able to get along.
What do you think the old term "Solid South" referred to?
And if it wasn't for the Solid South now, you damn yankees would be living under a communist totalitarian dictatorship. You ought to be down on your knees kissing our Southern asses.
Until the 1960s they mostly voted for Democrat Progressives, for Liberals, for Big Government and redistribution of wealth.
That's just a flat yankee lie. You pukes do love your revisionist history, don't you, bro. Read up on Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats. Southern democrats were have always been the conservative wing of that party. It was the northern liberals who hijacked the democrat party with their union money and communist tendencies.
"I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me."---Ronald Reagan
And how, exactly, could that include folks who can't get over the Civil War, hate the Union and everything associated with it, especially that wicked Republican Party?
Like I said above, thanks for proving that Southerners and damn yankees will never be able to get along.
Free Dixie!
Like I said above, thanks for proving that Lost Cause Losers will never be able to get along.
FIFY
“I’ve merely noted that the South as a whole has a long and checkered history of solidly supporting redistributionists, liberals and Democrats — as long as the money was being redistributed TO the South.”
You mean like those famous Southerners, Wilson, Roosevelt, and the Kennedy Dynasty? Please. Between them, we saw the biggest degradation of America in history.
As far as money being redistributed goes - nice job with reconstruction. The thorough planning that went into accommodating blacks up in the north, especially New England, the touching way the northerners welcomed them into their communities and helped them out ... it was all very moving.
Oh, wait ... those experimental socialist plans ... they were supposed to be carried out in the Southern states, weren’t they? Well, never mind. There were so many happy blacks living in the north after the war, they probably didn’t need them to work out after all. Which is good, because after the Pubbies were through with their graft, there wouldn’t be anything left anyway.
It certainly proves your point about the freedom loving north being all about freedom for slaves, I guess, huh? The detail that went into yankee planning for those freed is deeply touching and a credit to you northerners ... you were in it to free them all along. Why, as soon as the war ended, being able to go into northeren cities seeing them all integrated and happily living side by side with you all ... it must really have been something to see. A real proof of why you fought.
Oh and all that money and territory you snatched up wasn’t too bad either. Using all that money from the South to help those black folks was a nice touch, too. But I think that welcoming them into your homes, giving them shelter after burning down their homes, that was very nice. Hmpph.
“Andrew Johnson appointed new governors in the summer of 1865, and quickly declared that the war goals of national unity and the ending of slavery had been achieved, so that reconstruction was completed.
Republicans in Congress refused to accept Johnson’s lenient terms, rejected the new members of Congress selected by the South, and in 1865-66 broke with the president. A sweeping Republican victory in the 1866 Congressional elections in the North gave the Radical Republicans enough control of Congress that they over-rode Johnson’s vetoes and began what is called “Radical reconstruction” in 1867.
Congress removed the civilian governments in the South in 1867 and put the former Confederacy under the rule of the U.S. Army. The army then conducted new elections in which the freed slaves could vote while those who held leading positions under the Confederacy were denied the vote and could not run for office.
In ten states, coalitions of freedmen, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags formed Republican state governments, introduced reconstruction programs, massive aid to railroads, built public schools, and raised taxes. Conservative opponents charged that Republican regimes were marred by widespread corruption.”
Yep. Sounds like the north just HATED redistributionists, socialized governments and all ... some wonder what was worse ... the war itself or the coup the Republicans staged and the thuggery they perpetrated AFTER the war.
Not to mention the door that was opened to MASSIVE federal takeovers and plundering through force. It was a little like today’s Dems, running everything and telling us to STFU and pay the taxes, change the whole economy and prepare for Federal domination.
Gee, why was Abe worried that freedmen would not be well treated in the United States by Whites both in the North and South.
That's a puzzle .. especially because all of those big hearted, loving northerners wanted them to be free and living among them as brothers?
And why would a party so committed to being conservative have so MANY socialized programs?
“Sorry pal, but the South did not secede because Lincoln wanted to send blacks back to Africa.”
You keep looking at what I say bass ackwards. I never said they did. The north thought they could abolish slavery, alright. But Abe was still thinking “yeah, abolish it by shipping them out.” He didn’t give up on his idea until after a couple of failed attempts, and had to cave in 1863.
The South seceded because they were thinking that State’s Rights were just that ... and they felt a lot like I do right now .. WTF? Does the government really think they can tell me how to live? That my pocket is there for them to be picked? That whether it is right to support everyone they want me to support or not is not the point, but that God gave me freedom to choose, not them? That I have no say in commerce, lifestyle or economy (however wrong it might be and there was PLENTY of Southerners who made that admission) and to just STFU and change it their pace and not at the pace I think will work best for me and my state?
The South did NOT create slavery, but the whole economy (including the money made in the north) stemmed from it to some extent. That can simply not be denied. The South did NOT believe that the time was right to end it. The North did.
That’s when the South went berserk and sent all of their troops north to burn and kill everything that moved. Or is it the other way around?
The Confederate regime was too busy looting and murdering Southern citizens to get started on the North.
For example, who do you suppose were the strongest supporters of that great Democrat Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, in 1912?
Look for the darkest blue of blue counties:
How about 1916? Did the South drink more Progressive coolaid?
Look again for the darkest blue of blue counties:
And who voted most strongly for the greatest Progressive Democrat of them all, Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932?
Any difference in 1936?
How about 1940? Notice how much more of the country is beginning to get the idea, but who hasn't caught on yet.
Well, maybe the South finally turned against FDR in 1944?
1948 -- now we finally get a half-way conservative Democrat in Missouri's Harry Truman, and what does the South do?
Almost gets him defeated by voting for a third party.
1952! We have a war hero, moderate Republican (Eisenhower) supported by a very conservative Speaker of the House (Taft) versus the ultimate egghead progressive liberal Democrat (Stevenson), and how does the South vote?
But maybe things changed in 1956?
Now comes 1960, and the Democrats try nominating a more moderate (I shouldn't say "conservative") candidate in John Kennedy. So once again the Deep South wanders off into a third party.
Of course, in 1964 the South went for Goldwater, but what did they do in 1976, when offered the biggest doofus ever -- Jimmy Carter -- versus the at-least-sane Gerald Ford?
But what about 1980: offered a genuine conservative in Ronald Reagan versus the total doofus, Jimmy Carter, surely the South voted for Reagan, right?
So, now that you know the truth, guys, can we have an end to all this nonsense about how the South are the real conservatives, and the rest of us just pretenders?
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.