Posted on 09/23/2017 5:13:50 PM PDT by ChuckR163
Democrats supported slavery during the Civil war so they could get something for nothing.
“Yankees don’t know the South or blacks”
Agree.
“But that never stopped y’all from telling us both how to act”
Yankees tell everyone how to act. Including other Yankees.
“The South has gotten less racist? “
Since 1861, yes.
“Less than Massachusetts?”
Whoa, I didn’t say that, let’s not get carried away, here’s the OP and my response:
“It’s facile logic comparing a 1861 to today.”
Over that time, the South has gotten less racist and become more Republican.”
It was just an observation.
What about all the white lives that were given to free the slaves?
Lol
True
My brother lives in TC Michigan
I always amazed how quickly strangers scold one another
His dog poops on street and he cannot get it picked up quick enough before someone nearly always an over 50 helmet haircut woman is on his ass admonishing
Or I left my car running when it was zero outside to run into my room for something
I come back and old helmet head is waiting to tell me I’m wasting gas and polluting
In the Deep South challenges like that are viewed as impolite and possible aggression
But you live in the Texas of Canada now lucky you
I loved Calgary.....the girls....mid 70s
But the local boys were big and brawny them....probably hipsters now...effete
Don’t forget that the Dems are anti-Second Amendment. They hate the NRA because originally the NRA was formed by former Union soldier and officers to arm free blacks and teach them the use of firearms so they could protect themselves from Klan violence.
...Where exactly do slave owners Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Tyler et al fit in all of this...
Would be fair to say that the majority of slaves were owned by deep South democrats. Jefferson started the Democrat Republican party. Jackson was a Democrat.
Washington was the largest slave owner of his day and wasn’t a Democrat.
Jefferson and Madison founded the Democrat-Republican Party. That party elected Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and that famous southern slave owner, John Quincy Adams.
“Would be fair to say that the majority of slaves were owned by deep South democrats.”
You mean like John Calhoun, Whig, Henry Clay, Whig, Zachary Taylor, Whig, John Tyler, Whig?
...You mean like John Calhoun, Whig, Henry Clay, Whig, Zachary Taylor, Whig, John Tyler, Whig?...
Actually, I’m referring to the thousands of slave owners in the south at the time of the outbreak of the civil war. .
“Actually, I’m referring to the thousands of slave owners in the south at the time of the outbreak of the civil war. .”
All the ones that I listed were prominent Southern Senators and Presidents who were Whigs.
I’m curious to know how you justify the American Revolution considering that Britain issued two emancipation declarations as the colonists fought to secede from their mother government. Do Washington, Henry, Mason et al get a pass somehow?
Okay, not really, but he was basically an ideological Democrat who ran as a Whig because of quarrels within the Democrat Party.
Tyler opposed Andrew Jackson because Jackson wasn't "state's rights" enough.
Many slaveowners were Whigs, but the most ferocious secessionist fire eaters were usually Democrats.
So what? Do you think that gets you point with the knee kneelers or the perpetually outraged or the ‘whites are evil crowd?
“Tyler opposed Andrew Jackson because Jackson wasn’t “state’s rights” enough.”
He prolly had a point, seeing as Jackson was about to invade South Carolina over the nullification crisis. If that had ever been adjudicated it might have provided clarity regarding the issue of secession. Unfortunately it was rendered moot.
Charles Francis Adams Jr, scion of two Presidents and himself a Union officer, researched secession after the war for his own curiosity and concluded that “both sides were right”- that the issue of secession was ambiguous. That the founders ratifying the Constitution did so while believing that their states retained the right to withdraw from that union. But that a few, including Washington, believed otherwise. It’s in an essay Adams delivered in 1902, “Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?”
find it here:
https://archive.org/details/shallcromwellha00adamgoog
This looks to be a better copy of Shall Cromwell Have a Statue:
http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/Shall_Cromwell_Have_a_Statue.pdf
Oliver Wendell Holmes was similar. Adams and Holmes both came from educated, well-off, anti-slavery backgrounds and served in the war. Afterwards, they were sick of all the moralistic abolitionist talk and wanted to put it all behind them. They felt closer to the soldiers on the other side that they'd fought against than to the preachers and crusaders behind the lines.
I searched the two names and came up with this:
Sentiment was out; reality was in. Charles Francis Adams, Jr., a Union veteran scarred by the war, angrily attributed the conflict and its bloody train to Harriet Beecher Stowe and “that female and sentimentalist portrayal . . . that the only difference between the Ethiopian and the Caucasian is epidermal.” White Americans would not make the same mistake again. They would not allow a cloying, feminine Christianity, tugging at the heartstrings to lure young men to their graves for a cause not grounded in reason. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. remarked that the war pushed him across “the threshold of reality.” The businessman, not the philosopher, now received Holmes‟s admiration. “Business,” he declared “often seems mean, and always challenges your power to idealize the brute fact – but it hardens the fibre and I think is more likely to make more of a man of one who turns it to success.” Philosophy will only get you killed.
Who can blame them? To dwell on a bloody war, the loss of comrades, the carnage of the battlefield, the stench of the hospital, and the hopelessness of the prison was to invite nightmares without end. Military doctors at the time reported soldiers who suffered from extreme “exhaustion” so severe that it was difficult to rouse them from sleep in the morning. They also noted “disordered actions of the heart,” a type of arrhythmia traumatized soldiers experienced after combat. When the soldiers returned home after the war, the symptoms persisted. The first professional paper diagnosing what is now termed post-traumatic stress disorder appeared in 1876. Source
Good find with the David Goldfield piece. I didn’t know that Holmes came to hold a view like Adams.
“They felt closer to the soldiers on the other side that they’d fought against than to the preachers and crusaders behind the lines.”
And this is visible in the reunions that the veterans of the CSA and the GAR held after the war. Old men who had once been on the same fields trying to slaughter each other, sharing memories.
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.