Posted on 03/20/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by mnehring
Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
(Video at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjtv.com ...
Righto.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4
“(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
IOW, the CSA built into their constitution a prohibition of emancipation. Presumably this applied to the CSA Congress. I don’t think they prohibited a state from freeing its slaves.
I’ll have to go back and look. As I recall, they wanted to avoid the whole fugitive slave act unpleasantness so they added language precluding any “state” from interfering between someone and his property.
That is right, but there would be a civil war,too, meantime.
Democrats have been terrible for urbanites and blacks. It’s a real opportunity for us. Here in IL our State Treasurer has done an excellent outreach to minorities and he is the only GOP candidate to have nailed the Chicago vote. He’s great at outreach.
He’s going to run for Governor. He’s the only Republican to vote for civil unions. He’s never been married and is rumored to be homosexual. So now what do you do?
It’s what keeps the dims in power, and all these good ideas people have here won’t be allowed. I tend to think there is going to be a SHTF scenario, and much of the trouble will be along racial lines.
Libertarians dress modestly and Christians wear tube tops?
1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.Or 3.3, on new states and territories:
"3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.The notion that the Confederacy was some sort I states' rights paradise is historical revisionism. Slavery was required of all its member states, who didn't have the right to ever change their own internal policy in the future.
“Libertarians dress modestly and Christians wear tube tops?”
That was my first thought: whole lotta cleavage on that “angel”...
I agree. I’ve met Dan and he’s terrific. We will see if he gets in, but my point is that in IL it’s tough to get the perfect candidate.
How in the world can one be a “libertarian” and advocate forced segregation laws?
“We need to make sure these racist trolls don’t infiltrate our organizations. Buckley had them kicked out in the 50s and 60s, it is time for another purge.”
So? Every non-white who voted for obama hates whitey and they will not vote GOP. Why is it so hard for Freepers to accept this? If they’re racist towards us, why extend an olive branch to them? This is like those GOP morons like McCain pushing for amnesty thinking they’ll be GOP when they won’t.
Amen and amen!
This very website, Free Republic, has been attacked by some significant liberal media organs for racist bigotry spouted by a few people. The accusations were bogus — CharlesWayneCT did some digging and showed that the photos in question came from a liberal website, not Free Republic — but the damage was done nonetheless.
I don't care if someone is white, black, yellow, red, or brown. I do care a great deal if they're red, white and blue.
Being American is not an issue of race or of ethnicity. It is an issue of shared values and adherence to a written constitution.
As conservatives, we need to remember that.
Guilt by association isn't always fair, but sometimes it is, and other times it's just the way the world works. The simple reality of the modern political environment is that if we as conservatives don't purge ourselves of bigots, we will be blamed for the bigotry of those we don't repudiate. If we are going to blame moderate Democrats for not repudiating their extremist radicals, it's only fair that we get blamed if we don't demand that our own extremists be ostracized.
The Democrats always have been, and still are, the party of race. For most of their history, they enslaved blacks and turned them into second class citizens to maintain power. For the past 40 years, they’ve set up programs to get blacks addicted to government to maintain their power. They have never had good motives when it comes to race relations.
Sorry pal, but you appear confused and may not belong posting on Free Republic.
In the United States, Conservatism is an idea, an ideal which has nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to do with, in your words, "genetics", "race" or even a particular "nationality".
Yes, those words do define "conservatism" in some other countries, i.e., in Europe, but not here.
In America, conservatism simply means allegiance to the US Constitution and traditional family religious values.
It usually (but not always) also includes commitment to a strong-enough national defense.
So, if you think that "conservatism" has something to do with your genetics, race or nationality, then you are utterly confused about what it means to be a real American.
“Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.”
I would argue that the one thing different about the majority of northerners from that statement is one word: slavery. Take that word out and you’ve described the beliefs of most northerners. Keep in mind, too, that slavery was practiced by black Africans, so the one sliver of difference communicated here is a sense of white supremacy...a part which yankees, by in large, accepted as well.
Except for that itsy-bitsy detail that the cornerstone of America was laid on the assertion that “all men are created equal.”
In his speech Stephens explicitly claimed that the Founders were wrong in this belief and that the CSA was superior because it was founded upon his “great truth” that all men are NOT created equal.
I hope you can see the considerable difference between a belief system founded on human equality, however poorly expressed in practice, and one explicitly founded on a belief in permanent human inequality.
One can evolve towards greater equality in practice, as its ideals are put more effectively into use. As the other implements its ideals, it is likely to start finding additional differences between human groups justifying their differential treatment.
Not to mention the fairly obvious difficulties with deciding which group people fall into. Many (most) humans are neither Black nor White. How would Mr. Stephens classify Japanese or Indonesians?
Take it to DU. Racists aren’t welcome here. Zot.
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.