a Republican President issued the Emancipation Proclamation

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

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Yankee slave traders were as bad as anything our country has seen. But the Yankee slave traders never split the country to further the slavery interest as the Confederacy did. People distort the issue when they only focus on the comparison of the worst of the South versus the worst of the North. The issue wasn’t North versus South, but freedom versus slavery.

[1010RD]

Joe, What do you think of this Ron Chernow article (he's part of a "progressive" think tank)?

The Founding Fathers Versus the Tea Party

[cowboyway]

Nothing but the truth -- abbreviated of course.

Really? How about this:

"in 1980 against Ronald Reagan, the South voted for Jimmy Carter."---brojoek

One state, his home state, equals the entire South?

Like I said, you're a lying POS yankee.

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.

Reading comprehension. It's your friend. Use it.

In post #131 I clearly stated that the black population percentage numbers that I posted accounted for the "later" maps that you posted.

I live in one of the darkest red Northern counties.

New Yorker?

Figures.

half my family are Southerners.

My condolences to those unfortunate Southrons.

Franklin Roosevelt's third and fourth terms in 1940 & 1944.......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.

More lies. Look at the maps, bro. Take away the South and FDR would have still won the presidency 4 times.

we'd all be somewhat less liberal today.

Liberalism is the yankee way. It wasn't the South that embraced labor unions, a commie institution.

the South was not always so conservative.

The South has always been conservative. We're the Bible Belt. Praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

Free Dixie!

[BroJoeK]

Idabilly: "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."

Constitutionally, the Congress decides which territories, and under what conditons, applying for statehood will be admitted as states.
Constitutionally, Congress can also decide which states, and under what conditions, applying for secession can be released from their obligations as states.

Southern states submitted no applications to Congress, conducted no negotiations with Congress for conditions of secession -- i.e., debt shares, disposition of Federal properties, etc. -- and waited for no vote by Congress on their secession.

Instead, the South simply declared its secession and then sent "emassaries" to "negotiate" with the President.
Lincoln, according to his Constitutional duty, refused to see them, and when the South became violent, declared it to be in insurrection and rebellion.

Idabilly: "Secession doesn't need your - or - their permission."

It requires the approval of Congress -- same as it did to admit a state in the first place.

Idabilly quoting Madison: "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"

But there was no "usurpation," none. There was only an election in which the Southern Democrat candidate for president lost.

The new President had said literally nothing during the campaign and was months away from inauguration when the Deep South immediately began jumping ship.

There was zero "usurpation", period.
Nor did the South claim usurpations -- if anything, they claimed the opposite, that the Federal government had failed to enforce fugitive slave laws, or in the case of Texas, to defend the frontiers against Indians!

But the South's main complaint was what the new President might do sometime in the future according to his well known anti-slavery arguments.

So it wasn't Lincoln's actions which caused secession, but rather the South's perceptions of what Lincoln and the Republicans might do.

So the South's secession was in no way Constitutional.

[BroJoeK]

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

States Rights within the Constitution: wonderful and conservative.

Violent and unconstitutional efforts to assert States Rights: not wonderful and not "conservative."

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "One state, his home state, equals the entire South?"

Check out the county map: there were a lot of Southerners outside Georgia who voted for Carter, and they weren't all black.

cowboyway: "More lies. Look at the maps, bro. Take away the South and FDR would have still won the presidency 4 times."

In the last two elections, 1940 & 1944, the South would have taken at least 150 electoral votes away from FDR and thus turned it into a real horse-race.

And if the South had turned against Roosevelt, so likely would more of the mid-west -- making a Republican victory entirely possible.

cowboyway: "Liberalism is the yankee way. It wasn't the South that embraced labor unions, a commie institution."

The only thing "commie" about labor unions is Liberal Progressive government forcing unions on workers who don't want them, and allowing unions of government workers.

And who elected those Liberal Progressive Democrat governments to Washington?
Except for Barry Goldwater in 1964, the South was in on every one of them.

[mstar]

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

Oh I assure you I am no old crone and I have alot more going for me than your bimbos in flags, you little creep.

[rockrr]

“Bimbos in flags”? WTF are you jabbering on about?

[BroJoeK]

"Joe, What do you think of this Ron Chernow article (he's part of a "progressive" think tank)?"

The problem with all such liberal / progressives is that their typical logic goes something like this:

Because our Founders disagreed on "x" or "y", therefore socialized health care (or whatever their cause of the day is) is Constitutional.

The bottom line is:
Liberals always say we need more government and less freedom.

Conservatives say we should have less government and more freedom.

We're on the side of our Founding Fathers, they on the side of... who knows what? Marx? European Socialism? National Socialism? International Socialism?

Whatever it is, we've had enough of it and don't want more!

[cowboyway]

Check out the county map: there were a lot of Southerners outside Georgia who voted for Carter,

Your statement was a lie and now you're trying to back track with that piddlin argument? Lame.

and they weren't all black.

If you know as much about the South as you claim you do you'll know that if you overlap your 1980 county election map with a demographic map from that same year you'll see that those blue sections correspond nicely to the areas that were heavily populated with blacks from that same year:

1980 Census Tract - % black

In the last two elections, 1940 & 1944, the South would have taken at least 150 electoral votes away from FDR and thus turned it into a real horse-race. And if the South had turned against Roosevelt, so likely would more of the mid-west -- making a Republican victory entirely possible.

That's right, try to scrap the blame off on the South when the north was more responsible for FDR's regime than almost any other section of the country.

The only thing "commie" about labor unions is Liberal Progressive government forcing unions on workers who don't want them, and allowing unions of government workers.

Bull!

Labor unions are a commie institution that is now, and always has been, full of thuggery and corruption. Are you a union thug?

BTW, you have failed to answer my question about which yankee state are you from. Are you ashamed of where you're from?

Free Dixie!

[BroJoeK]

"New Yorker?"

No, pal, but I'll give you another hint.

Before 1936 my state never voted Democrat for President.
In 19 presidential elections since 1936, my state has voted Republican only 6 times, most recently for George Bush the elder.

In that same time, my county has voted Democrat only twice, for Roosevelt (1936 & 1940), and again for Lyndon Johnson -- well, as I've said, nobody's perfect.

My only point here is in answer to the question, in effect: who does the Republican party belong to?

I'd say it belongs to those who love it and have been most loyal to it, over the long term.

So, would that include you, pal?

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "Your statement was a lie and now you're trying to back track with that piddlin argument? Lame."

My statement was based on the county map -- should have double checked the state map.

But the fact is, in 1980 there were many Southern blue counties which were not a majority of black citizens.
Plenty of whites also voted for Carter.

And the proof of it is, that when the South truly wanted to vote Conservative, for example in 1984, then all those formerly blue counties miraculously turned red.

Sorry, pal, but you can't blame all your Democrat votes on blacks. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

cowboyway: "That's right, try to scrap the blame off on the South when the north was more responsible for FDR's regime than almost any other section of the country."

What is that, a little bit of mental mal-function?

Did you some how forget that Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, BHO & all the rest were/are Democrats?

And the Democrats were the party of the South, right?

So how are those people the fault of Northern Republicans?

[BroJoeK]

"Labor unions are a commie institution that is now, and always has been, full of thuggery and corruption. Are you a union thug?"

No.
But if you wish to talk unions, I'll see if I can eventually bring it back to the thread subject of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation:

Years ago I worked in management for companies which had unions, and for others which did not.

My experience was that those without unions prospered more than those with -- unless, unless they had a highly protected market for the company's products.
In other words, if a company has a captive market, and can charge any prices necessary, then the union can negotiate any wages & benefits they want.
But if the market place dictated prices, then an aggressive and corrupt union is a recipe for failure.

I was never involved in union negotiations, and never met a "union thug."
My impression of those guys was they knew perfectly well they were playing a losing hand, and would eventually bring their company down, but they couldn't stop themselves.
They played by the rules as they knew them.

A voluntary union legitimately elected is at least a legal entity.
A corrupt union forced-on or protected by the government is a much different story.

But the bottom line is: in a truly free market, unions shops must be squeezed out of business, because they are less efficient than a good non-union shop.

Part of the solution is to make markets freer and allow more competition, so that unions are gradually squeezed into extinction -- or transformed into truly productive partnerships with management.

And that kind of gradualism is along the lines that Abraham Lincoln favored towards slavery, before the South violently forced his hand in 1861.

[cowboyway]

No, pal, but I'll give you another hint. Before 1936 my state never voted Democrat for President. In 19 presidential elections since 1936, my state has voted Republican only 6 times, most recently for George Bush the elder.

Yawn....

I'd say it belongs to those who love it and have been most loyal to it, over the long term.

Juan McCain would meet those qualifications.

So, would that include you, pal?

Does it include you...pal?

[cowboyway]

should have double checked the state map.

I suspect that a lot of your 'facts' need to be double checked, pal.

Plenty of whites also voted for Carter.

Mostly in his home state, pal.

Sorry, pal, but you can't blame all your Democrat votes on blacks.

30% is not an insignificant number, pal.

[BroJoeK]

"Juan McCain would meet those qualifications."

You seemed awful proud of the fact that the Solid South voted solidly for a Republican, "Juan" McCain.

All of a sudden you're not so proud? ;-)

[mstar]

I'd say it belongs to those who love it and have been most loyal to it, over the long term.

You know what I find so amusing about this "GOP Great Forever" push is prior to the Conservatives' arrival on the scene along side Reagan, the Republican party was just about as liberal as the Dems. That pro-life and pro-family platform was one hard battle. I remember the old timers saying there was no way a pro-life platform would ever be passed. We fought it out and it did. Old Daddy Bush's political pals only went for a conservative platform after we threatened to split the vote.

[cowboyway]

You seemed awful proud of the fact that the Solid South voted solidly for a Republican, "Juan" McCain.

And the alternative was?

Actually, my whole family was on the verge of staying home on election day and Then Came Sarah.

I had to talk my dad, a WWII vet, into voting for Palin. He was deadset against voting for Juan, who we all know would have handed the dems almost anything they wanted to protect his 'maverick' image.

All of a sudden you're not so proud?

The republican party is largely responsible for obama. The Bush's, Juan McCain's, Grahamnesty's, Spector's, Collin's, Snow's and all the rest of the big spending, moderate repubs and CINO's are largely responsible for the current crisis.

Albeit, oblowme has magnified our troubles exponentially but if the repubs had acted responsibly and conservatively he would be a footnote in the history books.

Is handing the presidency to oblowme something that you're proud of, pal?

BTW, you damnyankees are responsible for that one. You proud of that, too?

[cowboyway]

I get the feeling that ol’ brojoek is one of those establishment republicans that likes to hold hands with Zak when he’s spinning his rhetoric.