Bigdog might explain to us why when he likes to point out that the slave owners in the south were Democrats, is it the case that only his brethren Republicans are the ones
now upset.
Another Traitor Monument Comes Down
- Thread starter katzgar
- Start date
Bigdog might explain to us why when he likes to point out that the slave owners in the south were Democrats, is it the case that only his brethren Republicans are the ones
now upset.
I've destroyed your position so you resort to ad hom. Big surprise. Yet victory is mine.
like I said your drugs are confusing you
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
I agree 100%. So... are the European statues commemorating the Plague of people --the victims -- or of the rats that brought the fleas that carried the disease? There are memorials to the Holocaust in Europe as well. But none of them are of Hitler, Nazi generals, or German soldiers.
Excellent point! RWNJs love to use that "Democrats were for slavery" argument; conveniently they disregard the fact that both parties have switched stances in the 154 years since. But then, facts are always best ignored when you're a conservative. Makes it a lot easier.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
If you knew your Southern history better than you'd understand that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were victims. Here in Winston-Salem they just took down a statue of "Silent Sam". He represented the soldiers that fought for a cause that wasn't the same as the Democrat politicians and the several hundred wealthy and influential slave owners at the time. Now that he's gone that history has been erased.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
That's a total BS argument, forwarded by the public teachers union (Democrats).
I remember when my son was in high school and he told me that's what he was taught. My advice was that he should always question things that may be disguised as political opinion. Does it pass the stink test? Does it make sense that an entire generation of Democrats, descendants of Democrats, would suddenly take the position of their ancestor enemies? And at the same time the opposition do the same? All the while, Democrats keeping their basic economic beliefs: that the rich make their money at the expense of the poor.
Or is their another explanation that makes a lot more sense?
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Germany has many war memorials to war dead in all wars including WWII.
http://www.thirdreichruins.com/memorials.htm
Think of all the patriotic German soldiers who died in 1939-45. The question is always the same: who gains from your fighting?
They also have very important monuments publicising their crimes. Where are yours?
reagansghost
eternal
"statues representing the Great Plague" have nothing in common with statues honoring Confederates fighting AGAINST the United States........any statues for Hitler, Mussolini, Gerbels, and the other Nazis or Italians or Japanese war criminals?
if you REALLY want to learn about the antebellum south, read this
Masterless Men: Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South
Analyzing land policy, labor, and legal history, Keri Leigh Merritt reveals what happens to excess workers when a capitalist system is predicated on slave labor. With the rising global demand for cotton - and thus, slaves - in the 1840s and 1850s, the need for white laborers in the American South was drastically reduced, creating a large underclass who were unemployed or underemployed. These poor whites could not compete - for jobs or living wages - with profitable slave labor. Though impoverished whites were never subjected to the daily violence and degrading humiliations of racial slavery, they did suffer tangible socio-economic consequences as a result of living in a slave society. Merritt examines how these 'masterless' men and women threatened the existing Southern hierarchy and ultimately helped push Southern slaveholders toward secession and civil war.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=masterle...339509&tag=googhydr-20&ref=pd_sl_8hcpome3yc_b
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Hate to tell you but he is factually correct.
"The Democratic Party was formed in 1792, when supporters of Thomas Jefferson began using the name Republicans, or Jeffersonian Republicans, to emphasize its anti-aristocratic policies. It adopted its present name during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson in the 1830s. In the 1840s and '50s, the party was in conflict over extending slavery to the Western territories. Southern Democrats insisted on protecting slavery in all the territories while many Northern Democrats resisted. The party split over the slavery issue in 1860 at its Presidential convention in Charleston, South Carolina.
Northern Democrats nominated Stephen Douglas as their candidate, and Southern Democrats adopted a pro-slavery platform and nominated John C. Breckinridge in an election campaign that would be won by Abraham Lincoln and the newly formed Republican Party. After the Civil War, most white Southerners opposed Radical Reconstruction and the Republican Party's support of black civil and political rights.
The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.
The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.
One of the consequences of the Democratic victories in the South was that many Southern Congressmen and Senators were almost automatically re-elected every election. Due to the importance of seniority in the U.S. Congress, Southerners were able to control most of the committees in both houses of Congress and kill any civil rights legislation. Even though Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Democrat, and a relatively liberal president during the 1930s and '40s, he rarely challenged the powerfully entrenched Southern bloc. When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death. "
https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Maybe you should drop your Native American classes and take American history, as you are woefully ignorant on the subject.
reagansghost
eternal
.......So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power. How did this switch happen?
Eric Rauchway, professor of American history at the University of California, Davis, pins the transition to the turn of the 20th century, when a highly influential Democrat named William Jennings Bryan blurred party lines by emphasizing the government's role in ensuring social justice through expansions of federal power — traditionally, a Republican stance. [How Have Tax Rates Changed Over Time?]
Republicans didn't immediately adopt the opposite position of favoring limited government. "Instead, for a couple of decades, both parties are promising an augmented federal government devoted in various ways to the cause of social justice," Rauchway wrote in a 2010 blog post for the Chronicles of Higher Education. Only gradually did Republican rhetoric drift to the counterarguments. The party's small-government platform cemented in the 1930s with its heated opposition to the New Deal.
But why did Bryan and other turn-of-the-century Democrats start advocating for big government? According to Rauchway, they, like Republicans, were trying to win the West. The admission of new western states to the union in the post-Civil War era created a new voting bloc, and both parties were vying for its attention.
Democrats seized upon a way of ingratiating themselves to western voters: Republican federal expansions in the 1860s and 1870s had turned out favorable to big businesses based in the northeast, such as banks, railroads and manufacturers, while small-time farmers like those who had gone west received very little. Both parties tried to exploit the discontent this generated, by promising the little guy some of the federal largesse that had hitherto gone to the business sector. From this point on, Democrats stuck with this stance — favoring federally funded social programs and benefits — while Republicans were gradually driven to the counterposition of hands-off government.
https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
As far as I can tell, racism in the modern Democratic party must be so exceedingly rare, that teabaggers are forever reduced to jumping in their time machines and time traveling back to the remote past 160 years ago to complain about the southern Dixiecrats, or time traveling back 80 years ago to complain about something a young Robert Byrd did.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
Hey dick-less the thread is about monuments and slavery! Start a new dip shit thread if you want to talk rhetoric.
Eagle_Eye
Well-known member
The civil rights act of 1964 was passed with 78% of Democrats voting no! That wasn't even 60 yrs ago live with it you support the racist party.
reagansghost
eternal
lying piece of shit ^^
Which party voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78 percent of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82 percent of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays).