Colin Kaepernick, The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery

You're trying to make this seem a lot more complex than it actually was. The Democrats alienated southerners by supporting civil rights, and the Republicans used the southern strategy to bring those voters into the party.

I never said that.

 

Isnt it funny how he claims the national anthem of the USA stands for racism, but he wears a castro shirt? Castro, the dictator of Cuba. The Guy who hire Che. Che, the guy who mass murdered blacks.

 

I think the easiest way to explain this to conservatives is:

Democrat platform in the 1800's: More conservative. Wanted government out of the equation and more states rights
Republican platform in the 1800's: more "liberal" (not really such thing as liberal back then, so I guess more accurately I'd say moderate)

Then it flipped

 

What a bunch of crap. If one does not like the fact slavery existed then one should find another planet to inhabit.

 

Actually it was the Republicans who primarily supported the 64 civil rights act and Democrats who opposed it.

 

I think you're trying to simplify a complex dynamic in order to support a polemic about race that is not true.

When I directly quote you, you'll know it.

Whenever a conservative points out that it was Republicans that supported civil rights and Democrats that opposed it the discussion descends into a no true Scotsman argument about how Democrats weren't really democrats and Republicans weren't really republicans because of the so called "southern strategy." Do you deny this phenomenon takes place because you can see it happened right in this thread. You even took part in it.

That no true Scotsman argument is clearly false, as I have demonstrated with the example of Wilson. The political parties are the sum of their belief systems. You can't simply argue that southern Democrats defected to the Republican party solely due to the issue of race & at the expense of all their other philosophies. You also can't ignore the racist Democrats that remained within the Democrat party after the split supposedly took place.

 

Actually it was the Republicans who primarily supported the 64 civil rights act and Democrats who opposed it.

 

And, who are the people?
Do the people not elect the gov't representatives?
Which make the laws and our rights?

How about in your own words, what right does anyone actually have?

 

No, that stanza is not about the preservation of slavery. It's about defeating the mercenaries who were fighting for the British to defeat America. It's about freeing the Americans who were captured by the British, enslaved and forced to fight against America. And it's about defeating the slaves who joined the British to help the British defeat America. In no case is this song about the preservation of slavery. It is about the preservation of the nation. And Kaepernick is a stupid, thankless, anti-American creep.

 

The only natural right is life. All others is gravy.
And one has a right to defend their life. No one has a right to liberty or happiness. That is a privilege granted by the gov't or the people. Depending on how the gov't is set up.
In the USA, the gov't is suppose to be the people's representative.

Tell me how much liberty and happiness are in many 3rd world countries. The whole world should have liberty and happiness if they are natural rights. But since the whole world isn't full of liberty and happiness, that means some external force has to grant them. And by happiness, I mean pursuit.

The only human condition is, life. All else can be taken at a moments notice. So can life, and someone's might can take that away.

 

And it was also same gov't that abolished slavery. After a brutal war.

You didn't give me your argument. Only to tell me mine isn't correct.

 

In the real world, the Northern states had slavery AFTER the civil war. The last states with slaves were:

Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and Delaware. All Union states. Which makes them a de facto part of the northern states.

 

You are utterly wrong and need to read our Declaration of Independence.

 

The delusion is strong with this one.


Beginning during the revolution and in the first two decades of the postwar era, every state in the North abolished slavery, ending with New Jersey in 1804. These were the first abolitionist laws in the Atlantic World..[44][45]

44.Jump up ^ Arthur Zilversmit, The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North (1967).
45.Jump up ^ Junius P. Rodriguez, ed. (2015). Encyclopedia of Emancipation and Abolition in the Transatlantic World. Routledge. pp. 34–35.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

 

The line referred to in the OPs article is "No refuge could save the hireling and slave / From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave". It's buried deep down in the third verse and, of course, is never actually sung.

The article is actually pretty interesting and discusses how Black slaves fled from the plantations and fought for the British. The phrase "hireling and slaves" refers to British mercenaries and Black slaves. I'd hardly call it a celebration of slavery, though. In fact, the line offers no comments on the topic of slavery itself. It simply recognizes that there were slaves fighting for the British who wouldn't be given any more mercy than the British.

 

Liberals in both parties supported it and conservatives in both parties opposed it. The Democrats simply had a larger conservative wing.

 

Are you native American? Based on your name.
Were the natives given life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the conquest of Europeans moving westward?
Or was some might involved in shaping this country?

Isn't the DoI a written document by men who were forming the gov't at the time? And set up the gov't and laws and bylaws?
Doesn't that document need to be backed by something? Govt.

If you have an argument, present it.

 

I did say "primarily supported" and opposed.

 

PBS is simply (*)(*)(*)(*)ing wrong because PBS is a biased as you are. Of course white liberal northerners at PBS want to call the Norths slow death of slavery by prohibiting the trade of slaves abolition but it's not. Prohibiting the trade of slaves is not 'abolishing the institution of slavery'. Go back in time and tell all the slaves who stayed slaves and their children who stayed slaves that slavery had been abolished.

But hey they even like to call it "the gradual abolition" so if you are dishonest I'm sure you could try and say that slavery had been abolished even though there were still slaves for decades.

Pennsylvania
New York
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Rhode Island
New Jersey

All went with the gradual model where slaves and the first generation stayed slaves. Only Vermont and Massachusetts abolished slavery and freed their slaves. That is why those pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*) at PBS used Vermont as their example. Those (*)(*)(*)(*)s know the truth.

 

How does Dread Scott work with states rights? Dread Scott is a ruling against states rights. Go read the SC declaration of secession. There a litany of complaints about the federal government not enforcing federal law in the free states.

- - - Updated - - -

The followers of John C. Calhoon didn't abolish slavery. Those who believed in natural rights did.

 

Much like modern-day conservatives, the Southern Democrats supported state's rights until the states did something they didn't like.

 

From the times no less:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0

 

Much like all liberals you believe in myths. Southern Democrats only became states rights champions after Brown V. Board of Education.

Remember the federal government was segregated up until Truman.

 

The UN has no such power over the US. The United States government does have that power over states under the Constitution.

 

Can you provide a source for General Sherman or his men engaging in rape?