Posted on 09/22/2010 7:55:54 AM PDT by Michael Zak
Now there’s a Freudian slip if I ever saw one. Were you aiming your aspersions at the wrong poster, or were you referring to the wrong “talking points” when you went off half-cocked?!
Watch for “But but but what have y’all done lately” in 5..4..3...
Teal interesting cut and paste, but the statement was about where they came from - the North - in rebuttal to your implication that they were southerners. Nice try and thanks for the maps.
Earlier post was misspelled: First word Teal should have been Real ... but you probably figured that out. I am puzzled by what you were trying to prove, though and since I came back to correct this misspelling, I will again direct you to Post 114:
You: “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.”
ME: You mean like those famous Southerners, Wilson, Roosevelt, and the Kennedy Dynasty? Please. Between them, we saw the biggest degradation of America in history.
Your response is puzzling because you go on to talk about everything other than the fact that I raised; that the “famous Southerners, Wilson, Roosevelt, and the Kennedy Dynasty” were hardly southerners; they were from your precious Northern Elite Schools.
And they are responsible for the creation of the pseudo-Democracy in which we now find ourselves.
But, they would not have been possible but for the Civil War and that war still isn’t over and you fools are all on here talking trash and trying to figure out who did what to who after a hundred and fifty years and it doesn’t matter.
Think about it. The Northern elites push a civil war that is bent on the destruction of an entire culture, infrastructure and hundreds of thousands of men women and children, livestock, grain and anything else.
Paul Newman said once in the movie Hombre, when the snotty bitch that was traveling with her thieving Eastern husband was making mockery of the people on who were being starved by her husband on his (Newman’s) reservation:
Snotty Bitch: “I can’t imagine eating a dog and not thinking anything of it.”
Newman: “You even been hungry, lady? Not just ready for supper. Hungry enough so that your belly swells?”
Snotty Bitch: “I wouldn’t care how hungry I got. I know I wouldn’t eat one of those camp dogs.”
Newman: “You’d eat it. You’d fight for the bones, too.”
The slaves, the poor, the dead, the wounded, the mayhem. And then, of course came the carpet baggers and assorted thieves to “redistribute wealth.” That helped quite a bit.
As to your fatuous claim that the South voted Democrat because the money was being redistributed to the south; well we don’t get another treat of maps and charts do we?
I for one won’t need them. I know why they voted Dem and we all know why the Dems focused on them.
Because the Southern existence was obliterated by the psychotic conduct of war upon its peoples, industry and infrastructure and your northern brain trust had no plan to rebuild after destroying it. NONE. Not even for the MILLIONS of slaves about whom they professed such concern and homeless refugees they created, what do you think they would do? Those that could make it on their own. But there were so many millions...and that created a culture of dependence for many millions.
Talk about starting a war that spun out of control. The Ladies and Gentlemen came with picnic baskets to watch the afternoon skirmish at First Manassas. Fools. That’s what the British thought in Concord. They thought they would march in, kick ass and take names and be home in time for tea.
The point you seem to so stubbornly resist conceding is that this war was one of destruction of the South, not of liberation. If it WERE a war about liberation, WHY WAS THERE NO PROVISION FOR IT?
That the South voted predominantly Democrat is not a new idea; there has been no one here saying otherwise. How else could the vote go? Democrats buy votes with favors!
That the South votes Republican TODAY seems unimportant to a lot of northerners today, though and especially here, for some odd reason, on a site that is supposed to be Conservative.
Which will be mighty interesting if push comes to shove and the Government decides ONE MORE TIME to get socialism right? Don’t know where all the Yanks might want to go if they need to, if they would rather live free or die, but, like the boys said in the song, “a Southern man don’t need him around...anyhow.” I know, I know ... I’m overstating it. It will never come to that. That’s what they said in Concord and Manassas.
The brain trust in the North insisted that the Emancipation of millions with NO PROVISION TO CARE FOR THEM created the very thing that is now choking America. It created a massive, dependent, rootless migrant people who were going to vote for anybody who offered a chicken for the pot. Well, how did that great Democratic fervor get created?
BY CONFEDERATES? BECAUSE THEY WERE TAKING THE MONEY?
Think about that; it’s insane. It’s like giving health care to thirty million more people with no more Doctors or Hospitals to care for them, except worse! What kind of moronic leaders would do something like that?
What might have happened had the War of Northern Aggression ended after Second Manassas, we will never know. It should have, though. The slightly average intellect would have said “Uh oh. We should look for a better way.”
And I mean that for BOTH sides. We both felt we were right. Just like Conservatives and Liberals. How far that contest gets pushed will be interesting, but if you are looking for a real brain teaser, try to figure THIS OUT:
how it is that the Northern elites, before the Civil War, hell bent on changing everything, killing, destroying and torching everything, didn’t consider what the change would bring, while doing it as Republicans. Then consider this; was that a real good idea, in retrospect? IS IT SOMETHING TO BRAG ABOUT?
And finally, aren’t they doing the same thing now, the same Northern elites, the same overnight destruction of an economy and a way of life? Just, under a different banner?
How do you think that will work out?
And what will it take to stop it?
That is where we are.
Thanks again for the maps. They really were interesting.
You said something to the effect:
“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?”
I didn’t understand that last part, they stopped in 1980?
What part of this do you not understand?
How can I say it more clearly: the "Solid South" is the reason -- indeed the only reason those Liberal Progressive Democrats ever got elected.
If Southerners had not been so solidly Progressive and redistributionists, the Wilsons, Franklin Roosevelts and even Kennedys could never have been elected.
So how are those people our fault?
Look pal, everyone has ancestors or relations we might not be so proud of -- conservatives in the North have most always been the minority, and have often made compromises just to preserve some shred of Constitutional liberties.
But for over 100 years, the South didn't help us any.
The South voted solidly for Democrat liberal progressive redistributionists, and without the South's vote, those folks could not have been elected.
Of course, all that's changed today, and we are totally delighted to have conservative support where ever we can find it.
But we are not so amused by Southern claims to have always been "more conservative than thou."
It jess ain't so.
First point: some people tend to conflate the barbarities of, say, a World War Two with the Civil War -- and there is no real comparison.
By any standard of more modern warfare, both sides in the Civil War were absolute gentlemen, disciplined and well behaved, usually beyond reproach.
And that was no accident, they were ordered to be so by their commanders. So the numbers of civilians murdered or raped was minuscule compared to, say, the tens of millions who died in the Second World War.
Yes, Civil War armies often lived off the land -- especially Southern armies, which could not afford bring their own supplies. By contrast, Northern armies were usually more self sufficient.
Of course I'm not saying there was no harm done to civilians, only that relatively speaking, it was quite small.
Second point: the South did indeed send their armies into Union states and territories -- whenever they could -- and those included Maryland, Pennsylvania, Western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and New Mexico among others.
Of course, if you only look at the last year of the Civil War, it seems like a total "War of Northern Aggression" against the South.
But if you study the first year, you'll see it was entirely a "War of Southern Aggression" against the North.
It has taken a long time for the revulsion of voting for a Republican in the South to end. Yes, for a century, conservatives in the Democratic party were following the party line much the same way the Republicans now follow along with the RINO's. After a hundred years the Republican party was finally not the Party of Lincoln, and it was socially acceptable to vote for a Rebublican.
Voting for a Democrat in the deep south was a protest against the Party of Lincoln. Plain and simple. You can read anything you want into it. Yes, Conservative Democrats were duped and stubborn, but such is history. If a president burns and pillages his way South; that party is not going to be getting many votes(apparently it takes about a 100 years).
Sorry, I didn't take the time to look up those following years, because I assume, assume, assume, that since then the South has voted pretty steadily conservative.
Understand, I'm not saying the South isn't conservative today. Thank God it is.
But if y'all had been more conservative back in the days of Wilson, FDR and JFK (just to name a few), we might not be so bad off as we are today.
And that's my only point here. ;-)
And I'm getting the impression that you're just another South hating history revisionist yankee.
You can post all the maps that you want to with your simplistic and highly biased captions but you can't change the fact that the South has always been the conservative section of the country.
Those earlier maps shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The War of Northern Aggression was still fresh for a lot of Southerners who had lived through that sordid yankee affair and I doubt that any one back then would have voted for a Lincoln republican. For instance, take the 1916 election. There was a New Jersey democrat and New York republican. Not really a good choice for any Southerner, but I highly doubt that a Confederate veteran would vote repub in that election. However, the republican party wasn't exactly a bastion of conservatism at that time anyway.
Go to 1932. As you may know, there was this little thing called The Great Depression going on. The republican candidate, Hoover got a lot of the blame for that little bump in the economy and was voted out. No surprise there.
1936. FDR's opponent, Landon, who didn't even carry his own state, was a political moderate and FDR got a historical 98.5% of the electoral vote.
The South would remain somewhat democrat until the northeast liberal yankees had thoroughly hijacked the party.
What about that third party in 1948? It was Strom Thurmond heading up the ticket on the States Rights Party, or Dixiecrats, which were hardly liberals.
BTW, do you believe in states rights, bro?
For an explanation for the large chunks of blue on later maps the following numbers should clarify that:
North Carolina - 21.6% black
South Carolina - 28.2% black
Georgia - 30.2% black
Alabama - 26.3% black
Mississippi - 37.2% black
Louisiana - 32.1% black
Virginia - 20% black
In addition to the above numbers, the last 20 years has seen a huge migration of yankees streaming down South to set up their liberal enclaves.
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?
When you start dealing in the truth maybe you'll wake up and realize that we are the real conservatives. Your revisionism won't work here, bro. It might work down at the union hall where you guys all gather to get hammered after work but that dog don't hunt down here.
You're just another lying, Reb bashing, yankee POS.
Free Dixie!
The Yankee Conservatives aren't pretenders, they're real. There just isn't enough of them so they go the RINO route, the slow boat to socialism. Can't say I blame 'em. I just don't need 'em.
“But if y’all had been more conservative back in the days of Wilson, FDR and JFK (just to name a few), we might not be so bad off as we are today. And that’s my only point here. ;-)”
Hard to be a “more conservative” society when you have had millions of homeless, needy and completely dependent people dumped into your society overnight. When you are hungry yo will eat dog ... and fight for the bones. Not to mention being starved further by the rampant graft. Nor to mention that the South did not offer the advantage of allowing the prominent and most promising leaders the option to “buy out” of the war.
It was too late by then ... the northern elites had so completely undermined the fabric of society and crippled the stronghold of self determination, liberty and individual rights that the culture was devastated by the additional new culture of dependency, as I stated. The new culture had been so completely formed that those who were freed or decimated had very little choice but to go along with “social programs” which became ingrained ... witness Detroit ... that was the point of the Hombre quotes in my post.
And, nationally (the South alone did not allow the Socialists into the White House) once we became use to the possibility of the tyranny of a Federal Usurpation, stripping away state’s rights, becoming resigned to it was a fait accompli. Hopefully, the NEW conservative Republican Party (if one can be established) will set that right.
And that is my point.
Sorry to disappoint you cva but it will ALWAYS be known as the “Party of Lincoln”. Now what are you gonna do?!
So you’re stating that jamming a thumb into you own collective eye-sockets is a rational response to perceived (and self-inflicted) injustice?
Bwaaaahaaa!
I hope a couple of your more reasonable comrades take you off to the side and do some ‘splainin to ya ;-)
I totally agree, just wish I had better data.
But consider this: When Washington was President, the US population was around 4 million.
Under Lincoln about 31 million and today 309 million.
So based on total populations, if George Washington's Federal Government had, say, 1,000 non-military employees, that would be equivalent to fewer than 10,000 under Lincoln and less than 100,000 today.
Similarly, if Lincoln's government had, say 20,000 employees, that would equate to 200,000 today.
Now, I can't find actual numbers for Washington or Lincoln, but they absolutely cannot have been more than those 1,000 or 20,000 and most likely far less.
But according to this site, today's Federal non-military employees are about 1.4 million and relative to population that number has not changed so much since WWII.
It was down under Eisenhower and again during the Gingrich Congress, by 10% at most.
But Nixon-Ford-Carter had 20% more than today, and now we're rapidly growing back to that level again under Obama-Pelosi-Reid.
One problem, of course, is that given modern technology -- where one person often easily does the work of several 50 years ago -- you would expect government, which is nothing but information processing, after all, to be maybe 50% or even 80% smaller!
And yet it has constantly grown in absolute numbers and cost, while staying roughly the same relative to population.
So, who are these Federal employees?
Now my personal preference would be to first delete or simplify their missions, then fire about half of them, and tell the other half they could quit too if they didn't want to work harder.
But since the shock of normal reality would probably kill a bunch of them, we could phase it in more gradually by freezing all hiring, promotions and pay raises until Federal work force costs had been reduced to the relative levels of those under, oh, say, that great Progressive, President Roosevelt -- I mean Teddy Roosevelt, of course. ;-)
It would be a good start!
Amen Brother, a great post. ;-)
How can I say it more clearly: the “Solid South” is the reason — indeed the only reason those Liberal Progressive Democrats ever got elected.”
You say this as if they were an invention of the South, not the product of the north and as if the South was the only voting block? It baffles me. You think they were Liberal Progressives (as opposed to the the Republican Progressives) because of the South?
They were NORTHENERS.
You turn logic on it’s head. The liberal progressive mindset that produced the Republican Progressives and today’s Liberal Progressives emanate from the same place. The difference today, of course, is that the South not only doesn’t need Northern caused aid, they want them to stay out.
“But we are not so amused by Southern claims to have always been “more conservative than thou.”
I see that you clearly delineate between “you” and “us” so please tell me, who has said that “we” were more conservative? Unless you are referring to a stubborn insistence on State’s rights, independence of economy, commerce and trade, before the Civil War? Then, yes, that is true. After the war, not so much, obviously, with the tremendous burden of poverty, homelessness and privation.
“But for over 100 years, the South didn’t help us any. The South voted solidly for Democrat liberal progressive redistributionists, and without the South’s vote, those folks could not have been elected. Of course, all that’s changed today, and we are totally delighted to have conservative support where ever we can find it.”
You “are totally delighted to have conservative support where ever we can find it.” ?????
That the North destroyed the ability for the South to recover and created a welfare state within it’s previous social and economic structure, then when they no longer needed the help, they reverted back to their old selves is quite evident. Yet you fault them for having been needlessly crippled because they failed to meet the Northern timetable? Yes, I should think that you WOULD be totally delighted to have the South back to its old self.
We seem to have been divided again, I guess. Once again, you say that as if the two were independent of each other, as if the South took money and aid because it WANTED to. That is such a rare argument to make - and perversion of history - it is hard to fathom how you are thinking.
Remember the old saying “the South will rise again?”
It did. And now it is likely to save everyone’s - even “your” in the North - ass. Of course, I can move home to the South, but most northerners would probably feel like you were going to have to move to an alien planet, from the staggering amount of brainwashing there has been. And many wouldn’t go there because they hate Southerners, even still. I have lived all over this country, literally in each corner and I can say that the only real divide is the Liberal and the Conservative. That the Republican Party fails to recognize its massive mistake in starting, prosecuting, continuing beyond the point where it was obviously going to destroy us for a century (as predicted by many) and completely mismanaging the aftermath of the War of Aggression waged on its own people is tragic.
What next, do we deny that the North systematically destroyed any chance of the South to recover and further F**ed it up through Reconstruction? Or was the devastation (what I believe you refer to as “foraging”) and dumping millions of homeless illiterate people onto the streets supposed to be easily absorbed?
Is that what you are saying? Really?
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.