151 Years Ago Today – Republicans Freed the Slaves

And back then the Democrats were the conservative party.

 

No, being anti-slavery was the *religious* stance of the time. Just like the civil rights movement, the anti-slavery movement was driven by Christian churches, not by politics. Before the war, the political class was pro-slavery, or at best neutral. Slavery did not start the war, and slavery become a prime issue with the Northern political class only after it became a convenient arguement to propagate the war and their interests.

Modern "progressives" are not about freedom but top down authoritarianism. Look at the actions of obama and the rest of the "progressives", they are not the actions of people who think all people are created equal and respected. Modern progs believe that there is an elite class formed by the few "superior" intellects who should dictate the lives of the masses, and those that disagree are simple "astroturf" to be dismissed.

Besides terminology and the names and faces, modern progs are interchangeable with Hitler in 1937. Read about 1937 Germany and Hitler, nations around the world thought the Nazi model was to be emulated. Hitler unified post-WW1 Germany and brought it out of the Depression years earlier than other nations, was Time man-of-the-year in 1938. Read some of his pre-war speeches, his points were to return German manufacturing jobs, improve the life of the working man, improve wages, minimum wages, decrease wealth inequality. Hitler was a "progressive" of 1938.

 

How many people in concentration camps In Germany do you think would have went free
If Franklin Roosevelt declared them free in 1943
The emancipation proclamation was issued
To keep France and the United Kingdom
From helping the cotton producing south
because anyone helping the south would be fighting for slavery

 

Progressives fought to end Segregation, fought to let blacks vote in The South, fought to get women the right to vote, and fought to free the slaves.

Conservatives seek to conserve the status-quo. That's why they're called "CONSERVative"

 

Not at all. "progressive" means socialist.

 

LOL....of course......

 

Yeah, right!!!

 

Well that is an interesting revisionist argument.

The Union did not go to war over slavery, but the Confederacy did. The Confederacy fought to preserve the status quo- i.e. they were Conservative. The Conseravtives of the Confederacy argued for states rights over the Federal government- i.e. the Conservative argument.

Meanwhile, the anti-slavery movement was behind the founding of the Republican Party- i.e. it was Progressive- as in the definition
a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

It began as a coalition of anti-slavery "Conscience Whigs" and Free Soil Democrats opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, submitted to Congress by Stephen Douglas in January 1854. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36° 30′ latitude, which had been part of the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by Free-Soil and Abolitionist Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South.

And social reform doesn't get much more radical than ending the institution of slavery.

 

Bold faced lie. Taking the fruits of labor from workers by force and giving it others is the hallmark of lefterism and is alive and well in the democrat party. You just got better at it.

Oh, and you still champion laws that discriminate based on race and have never officially accepted equality between the races under law which has been the official goal of the republican since day 1.

Just because your history and the history of all lefterism is bad doesn't mean you get to project it on your opponents. That is the lefty mental disorder manifesting itself. Learn to fight it.

 

So Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan were socialists?

 

So its the stance of the Republican party to support stripping private property, removing habeas corpus protections, instituting martial law, having the government take over private industry, massively increasing the size of government, stomping on state sovereignty, and instituting income taxes like Lincoln did?

Those are conservative positions?

 

Your definition of conservative is a projection of your ideology's past. Not ours.

Do you demand 40% plus from the people by force in tribute?
Can you name a year the democrat party didnt stand on the side of protecting racially discriminative laws?
A populist party goes where the populace does. It discriminated against blacks when that was profitable, now they go for white men. Republicans have always championed racial and gender equally then the dems and I want to hear a year otherwise.

 

Are those "progressive positions"? Or necessary when you have to kill violent lefties in a civil war? He got an amendment for the proclamation because he knew it wouldn't stand constitutional muster. I will take the size government Lincoln left and the tax rates too if you will. Deal? Surely civil war is a big enough emergency, that size government should be able to handle something trivial like a recession.

 

WJB was.

Teddy set a few power seizing precedent that have proven problematic. He transformed the presidency from an executive role to that of a head legislator and that is a mistake.

 

I thought increasing the size and scope of federal government power was the position of progressives, but you heard it here folks: Increasing government power is a conservative stance.

- - - Updated - - -

How exactly what Bryan a socialist?

 

The vast majority of black people are imprisoned in democrat towns under democrat police chiefs and stand in front of democrat judges. Now tell me about racism in the legal system again.

 

That is exactly what the Conservative Democrats of the Confederacy argued. They actually feared that Lincoln and the Republicans were more 'Progressive' than they were- and argued that the Federal Government- under the Republicans- were going to take their property- i.e. slaves.

The Confederate States of America were big Conservative, States Rights and pro-Slavery Democrats. The Republicans were radicals who pushed to change the status quo and eliminate slavery in America, using the power of the Federal government.

Georgia
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic
Mississippi
Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

South Carolina
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

 

Yes, and when the man behind it got assassinated, the party hardly shed a tear.

The spent the next half century indulging in a marathon of graft and corruption unique in US history.

They were the carpetbaggers who installed scalywags in public office all over the south.

 

What 'violent lefties in a civil war' are you speaking of?

Seriously you appear to name as a 'lefty' simply anyone who you wish to be on the opposite side of whatever odd position you take.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting how you didn't address any of my points- so I will ignore yours also


The Union did not go to war over slavery, but the Confederacy did.

The Confederacy fought to preserve the status quo- i.e. they were Conservative. The Conseravtives of the Confederacy argued for states rights over the Federal government- i.e. the Conservative argument.

Meanwhile, the anti-slavery movement was behind the founding of the Republican Party- i.e. it was Progressive- as in the definition
a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.

It began as a coalition of anti-slavery "Conscience Whigs" and Free Soil Democrats opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, submitted to Congress by Stephen Douglas in January 1854. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36° 30′ latitude, which had been part of the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by Free-Soil and Abolitionist Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South.

And social reform doesn't get much more radical than ending the institution of slavery.

 

This shows just how much the parties have changed. In fact it would be safe to say they are not even the same parties. Obama had nothing to do with it. The government should not have to mention everything that has happened in our history for every anniversary.

 

That is certainly true.

Back in 1960, you couldn't find a black Democrat below the Potomac River. They all belonged to the Party of Lincoln. Of course, many of them couldn't vote.

The GOP never gave a damm about civil rights and took no active part in the struggles over civil right in the 1950's and 60's.

When the Democrats succeeded in 1964 and 1965, it took less than five year for the GOP to beging trying to exploit latent white resentment.

Watching wingnuts try and rewrite this history is both disgusting and pathetic.

I lived through all of that, and the narrative the right wingers on this tread are peddling is false, and built carefully on a small set of carefully chosen facts which are being spun to suggest the opposite of reality.

Of course, the bigots in the audence eat this up. It validates them, and gives them an opportunity to claim to be the champions of minorities when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Watch the names of the folks who buy this nonsense. They're the same people who defended Phil Robertson's bigotry, defended Newt Gingrich's race baiting, and who routinely post empty rants about welfare queens and other stereotypes.

 

No, it has to do with taking someone's labor for yourself by government. Whether it be communism, feudalism, slavery, socialism, fascism etc...

Aren't you a capitalist?

I know. The north didnt plan for war. They worked to win in the political sphere. The south started the war. What is your point?

Doing something radical socially has nothing to do with the left. They could extend rights to humans throughout their life cycle if they so radically for social change.

The left whether social authoritarian or not agrees with one thing. It is fine to take what others earn to give to other people as they see fit. This is what defines you.

Your use of the word conservative has nothing to do with the right or the Republican Party.

 

What a silly, immature, and ignorant talking point.

The Republicans of 1863 supported the same platforms as the Democrats of 2013.

 

Platform of the original Republican Party:

The Republican platform pledged not to extend slavery and called for enactment of free-homestead legislation, prompt establishment of a daily overland mail service, a transcontinental railroad, and support of the protective tariff

Hmmm free land for Americans, establishment of a federal mail program and big government support to establish enterprise- and of course - protective tariffs.

Sounds pretty "Progressive" to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Once again- what does that have to do with your post about 'violent lefties'?

What 'violent lefties in a civil war' are you speaking of?

Who were you speaking of?

 

I guess that's your revisionist story and you're stuck with it.