a Republican President issued the Emancipation Proclamation

Grand Old Partisan ^ | September 22, 2010 | Michael Zak

[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."

[Non-Sequitur]

I guess for a proper tally of Sherman's victims we could organize a "let's count civilian tombstones field trip", to search for those dating from Uncle Billy's neighborhood romps.

Or we could continue to rely on your family lore. </sarcasm>

[Non-Sequitur]

These, of course, will be dismissed as “not reputable sources” I am sure.

I believe the question was the number of civilians killed by Sherman during his Georgia campaign, not the total number of deaths for the entire rebellion.

Of course if you're claiming that the Georgia militia did inflict 360,000 casualties on Sherman's army and that more than a quarter million civilians were killed by Sherman and his army then yeah, I will dismiss it as not reputable.

[Non-Sequitur]

Well, the other problem is that there were so many unreported deaths that were caused by starvation, exposure, untreated beatings and rapes, internal bleeding gone untreated or diagnosed, illnesses untreated because of the lack of medical help, lack of medicine or bandages that it’s really hard to put a number on it.

Not to mention those Sherman had drawn and quartered, flayed at the stake and burned, and drowned as witches and warlocks. </sarcasm>

[BroJoeK]

"Sorry pal, but what you're posting is half truths and flat lies."

Just the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Let's give credit where credit is due: the Deep South solidly supported Barry Goldwater in 1964. Thank you, sincerely.

But in 1912 and again in 1916 the Solid South went for Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

In 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944 the Solid South went for Progressive Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.

In 1948 the South failed to solidly support the more moderate Democrat, Harry Truman from Missouri.

In 1952 and 1956 the Solid South went for the Progressive Democrat Adlai Stevenson.

In 1960 the South split again in supporting a more moderate Democrat, John Kennedy.

In 1964 the Deep South mostly voted for Barry Goldwater, though the Upper South and Border States went for Johnson.

In 1976 against Gerald Ford and again in 1980 against Ronald Reagan, the South voted for Jimmy Carter.

In 1992 half the Southern states voted for Bill Clinton, and even in 1996, still 1/3 of them went for Clinton.

The only point here is: the South was always more likely to vote for a Liberal Progressive redistributionist socialistic Democrat for President than any other section of the country.

So let's not hear any more of: the South has always been "more conservative than thou" talk, OK?

[Hegewisch Dupa]

no fair posting facts!

[cowboyway]

Just the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

Bullshit.

Your post is so full of lies it's hard to know where to start.

The only point here is: the South was always more likely to vote for a Liberal Progressive redistributionist socialistic Democrat for President than any other section of the country.

I will agree that approximately 25% of the South is inclined to vote for liberals. That would be the melanin enriched part of the South, who have traditionally been aligned with the yankees since a certain unpleasantness.

So let's not hear any more of: the South has always been "more conservative than thou" talk, OK?

I thought you were all about truth, bro.

Since you like maps, check this one out:

BTW, the Southern states that are blue on that map have been infested with yankees.

Three questions for ya, bro:
1) Which yankee state are you from?
2) Since the South is so bad, wouldn't the north be better off without us?
3) What do you think the government would be like in the northern states without the South?

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Do you ever get tried of posting the same worn out talking point lines assigned to you by another, over and over again on thread after endless thread? Bet you've lost touch with how you really feel about all this.

I do often have only one note on my trumpet, but too many Southerners seem pretty unwilling to consider how the Confederacy was characterized by misrule and despotism. So much effort is put into hating Yankees and Lincoln that they ignore people Like Jeff Davis and his gang, the real apostles of despotism.

[mstar]

many Southerners seem pretty unwilling to consider how the Confederacy was characterized by misrule and despotism. So much effort is put into hating Yankees and Lincoln that they ignore people Like Jeff Davis and his gang, the real apostles of despotism.

Wow what cutting edge insight. Guess we can now move on to the fat-cat corrupt mad but lazy phony aristocrats that started it all soooo we should all worship "Saint Abe The Deliver" instead and buy whatever it is you are selling.

Isn't that how it goes, colonel?

[mstar]

Guess I will repeat my earlier selectively ignored statement;

“I guess for a proper tally of Sherman's victims we could organize a “let's count civilian tombstones field trip”, to search for those dating from Uncle Billy's neighborhood romps.

Actually no one will ever know the true numbers for like all criminals, Billy did his work in secret under the cloak of darkness, letting his bummers do his dirty work for him. What evidence he didn't have burned, he destroyed it with lies.”

But you knew the answer to this before you asked the question, didn't you? It's a favorite with your group, so very much aware of how thoroughly your Uncle Cump covered his tracks.

[1010RD]

Joe, great stuff and really informative. I have one question and I’ve not done the research myself, yet.

The Biggest Doofus Ever (Obama’s giving him a run for his money), beat Ford, yet your map shows him just capturing GA and some cities, do you have the raw electoral numbers?

Thanks.

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "Bullshit. Your post is so full of lies it's hard to know where to start."

Nothing but the truth -- abbreviated of course.
If you want to point out an actual "lie," I'll be interested to learn it.

cowboyway: "I will agree that approximately 25% of the South is inclined to vote for liberals.
That would be the melanin enriched part of the South, who have traditionally been aligned with the yankees since a certain unpleasantness."

I understand your point, you made it before, and in recent elections it may have some validity.

But it was not Southern black voters who elected Woodrow Wilson President in 1912 and 1916.
Such blacks as could vote back then would have voted Republican.

It was Southern white votes that twice elected Wilson -- and without them, Wilson would have lost.

Southern whites also voted solidly for FDR (4 times) and Stevenson (twice) -- at a time when most blacks who could vote were still voting Republican.

And the real proof that Deep South whites, not blacks, controlled elections came in 1964 when they voted against all tradition and for the Mr. Conservative Republican, Barry Goldwater.

By then the black vote was solidly Democrat, but they could not stop the Deep South from turning red.

The same was true in 1972 when the South voted for Nixon over Leftist darling McGovern.

Point is: whenever the South wanted to vote Republican, it certainly could.
But it did not want to -- when the choices were Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson and Jimmy Carter.

So there's no truthful way you can blame those votes on Southern blacks, pal.

Now, here's your McCain v Obama map again.
I live in one of the darkest red Northern counties.

cowboyway: "2) Since the South is so bad, wouldn't the north be better off without us?"

I love the South, half my family are Southerners.
And I believe that any state which wants to secede should submit its application to Congress, negotiate all matters in good faith -- such as shares of national debt and disposition of Federal properties -- then legally abide by whatever the Congress decides.

And if Congress votes "no", then they should work harder to win friends and allies, and then try, try again.

cowboyway: "3) What do you think the government would be like in the northern states without the South?"

Where the Southern vote made a genuine difference was in the elections of Woodrow Wilson in 1912 & 1916, Franklin Roosevelt's third and fourth terms in 1940 & 1944, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Bill Clinton in 1992.
Without the Solid South, those elections could have gone for more moderate Republicans, and the result is, we'd all be somewhat less liberal today.

But understand, I'm not trying to minimize the South's conservative vote today -- it's hugely important.
I'm only saying -- truthfully -- the South was not always so conservative.
In many past elections white Southerners voted the straight Liberal Progressive redistributionist socialist Democrat ticket for President.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I suggest that a purchase of "Bitterly Divided" by David Williams of Valdosta State University would shed some life on Dixie's internal Civil War and the way the Confederate power structure misused and abused their fellow Southerners.

The Confederacy wasn't a failure because it was good, noble or honorable. It was an abomination in the history of our nation and that's why it was such a miserable failure.

[mstar]

give it up

[Colonel Kangaroo]

give it up

That's what the many thousands of Confederate deserters did. Might be a clue that the slavery empire was not worth fighting for.

[rockrr]

Nice try Colonel, but you know the old adage; “There’s none so blind as those dumber than a rotted stump”...;-)

[Idabilly]

That is just insane, Colonel scalawag. You should write a book titled "yankee hypocrisy"..

The [British] slave trade was carried on by means of “factories,” or trading establishments, defended by forts on the west coast of Africa. In 1750, the Royal African Company had nine factories, the chief of which was Cape Coast Castle, with a strong fort built on a huge rock that projected into the sea. It was expensive to maintain these forts and trading posts. In fact, the company was prevented from going bankrupt by an annual grant of [10,000 pounds]. The competition of French slave traders, who paid more for their human merchandise than the English company, was especially formidable since the French African Company was heavily subsidized by its government.

During the first half of the eighteenth century Bristol and Liverpool were the great slave trading ports of the British Empire. In 1750, a total of 155 British and colonial ships were engaged in the slave trade, of which 20 came from the American colonies, principally from Rhode Island. Toward the close of the colonial period, however, there were 150 Rhode Island ships employed in this traffic as compared with 192 English ships, a record to which Southerners pointed during the antislavery controversy.

These ships often were engaged in a triangular trade with England or the American colonies, the west coast of Africa, and the West Indies. To Africa the slave ships carried trading goods, bars of iron, rum –“well-watered” – forearms, lead, beads, and cloth, which they exchanged for slaves. The later were transported to the sugar islands of the West Indies and exchanged for molasses, rum and gold coins. In New England, the molasses was manufactured into rum to exchange for more slaves.”

A History of the Old South, The Emergence of a Reluctant Nation, Clement Eaton, MacMillan Publishing, 1975, page 31

[mstar]

That is just insane, Colonel scalawag. You should write a book titled "yankee hypocrisy"..

You wonder if these two can turn it off once they leave the "office", or does the colonel continue to mindlessly mutter his assigned talking points, while rocker does background with his one man Greek Chorus insults. What a delight for the whole family.

[Idabilly]

And I believe that any state which wants to secede should submit its application to Congress, negotiate all matters in good faith -- such as shares of national debt and disposition of Federal properties -- then legally abide by whatever the Congress decides.

That "negotiation" theory of yours was tried, it failed. Congress is not the finale arbiter, the people are. And How do these people speak? - They speak as their State. You seem to forget that the General Government is but an agent for the States.

And if Congress votes "no", then they should work harder to win friends and allies, and then try, try again.

You no-account neocons will never stop twisting words... and historical facts. Secession doesn't need your - or - their permission.

The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.Madison

If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation. Jefferson

[central_va]

So let's not hear any more of: the South has always been "more conservative than thou" talk, OK?

What is more conservative than taking a stand on states rights, willing to risk everything for it?

“[T]he principle for which we contended is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form."

          ---Jefferson Davis

[rockrr]

I wonder.

I also wonder if some are as much a shrewish old crone in person as is presented online?