Another Racist Tweet?

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, and you think that's actually what happened, that the south gave up the war they began in order to better get along with their northern foes?

It's humor, Jim. In marriage, you often win by losing.

[JimL]

It's humor, Jim. In marriage, you often win by losing.

Right, I got that, but rogue wasn't being humorous, at least not intentionally so.

[Cow Poke]

Right, I got that, but rogue wasn't being humorous, at least not intentionally so.

I was.

[rogue06]

No, she said that republicans were hated in the south and that no one would call themselves a republican for fear of being shot, or something to that effect.

Let's take a look at what she actually said rather than your, um, "paraphrase":

Reconstruction was over, that's true - but Southerners HADN'T forgotten - and the hatred of the Republicans ran so deep that it continued until the Civil Rights movement was over.

I was THERE.

Now I can see why you didn't quote her. It wouldn't support your claim. Not even close to it. So you concocted your own twisted version of it instead. Naughty boy.

So no, it wasn't a sudden rise, it was a slow and steady rise until the 1960's and the civil rights movement, school desegragation, The CRA, the VRA, Martin Luther King etc etc.

She never said it was a sudden rise. This again is your own twisted version. She said that you didn't see Republican membership start to substantially increase until well after the Civil Rights era and that it took place mainly in the 80s and 90s (over two decades).

Don't you have what it takes to counter what she says? Is this why you keep fabricating straw man arguments to battle with?

The vast majority of who went back to the Democrat fold from where?

Um, look at what I what you said that I was responding to

The Dixiecrats couldn't be considered democrats since they split from the democrats and their nominee (Truman) and nominated their own Presidential candidate (Strom Thurmond). And btw, though the Dixiecrats and Strom Thurmond lost the election

Since you are revealing an ability at reading comprehension akin to someone in a coma I highlighted the pertinent part for you. The Dixiecrats came from the Democrats not Republicans (note they aren't called Dixiecans) and returned to the Democrats -- including the very few like Thurmond who would later switch parties.

What is this, revisionist history, or is that what they teach you down south? The Dixiecrats revolted from the Dem. Party in 1948 because of the Democrats civil rights platform under Truman, and very few republicans voted for the CRA or the VRA passed by democrats in 1964 and 65.

Technically I'm a "carpetbagger" having been born in Minnesota and lived in Michigan before spending the rest of my life (50+ years south of the Mason-Dixon line). Most of my early schooling (Elementary up into Junior High) was done right outside of Washington D.C. where the end all and be all was the federal government (when we learned to diagram a sentence it was usually from the Constitution or Declaration of Independence; when we got a word problem in math it was about appropriations, revenue and taxes).

Now, in the real world, it was the Democrats that led the record 74 day long Senate filibuster in opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Included among the organizers of the filibuster were several prominent and well-known Democrat standard-bearers including Robert Byrd (Senate Majority Leader, President pro tempore of the Senate^[1] and former kleagle -- recruiter -- for the KKK who was still publicly using the n-word on national TV as late as 2001), J. William Fulbright (Arkansas Senator and mentor of Bill Clinton), Al Gore Sr. (Tennessee Senator and father of Al Gore Jr. who has been known to lie about his father’s vote^[2]), Sam Ervin (North Carolina Senator of the Watergate hearings fame) and Richard Russell (Georgia Senator and another President pro tempore). A total of 21 Democrat Senators opposed the Civil Rights Act. The party was torn in half over the issue, with a full 40% of House Democrats voting against it.

OTOH, the Republicans backed the Civil Rights legislation. For example, 82% of Republicans in the Senate and 79% in the House voted for the Civil Rights Act. The no vote in both Houses consisted of 74% Democrats. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of the Republicans in the House, and by 94% of Senate Republicans.

Concerning the Voting Rights Act the same Democrat standard-bearers took their normal racist stands, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort. It took the hard work of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen and Republican Whip Thomas Kuchel to pass the Civil Rights Act (the former was presented a civil rights accomplishment award for the year by the NAACP in recognition of his efforts). Dirksen was also responsible for breaking the Democrat filibuster of the 1957 Civil Rights Act that was signed by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. The fact is that if it weren’t for the Republican’s overwhelming support, all of these measures would have been defeated.

In fact, FWIU, of the 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes (whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes).

Did you really think that you were going to bluff your way through this?





1. Third in the line of succession to the presidency behind the Vice President and Speaker of the House

2. In a speech on civil rights Al Gore claimed that,

"My commitment to civil rights is a deeply personal one. I watched my father when he was, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee, take courageous stands for civil rights. He opposed the poll tax in the ‘40s, and supported civil rights in the ‘50s, he supported voting rights in 1963, and was one of two Southern Senators to refuse to sign the hateful Southern Manifesto opposing integration in our schools. He lost his Senate seat because his [sic] stands.”

Apparently, Al Gore’s memory is a bit fuzzy. His father’s civil rights record is a tad less glorious than Al relates. For example, Al Gore Sr. voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore Sr. participated in a 74-day filibuster to delay and weaken the legislation. Al Gore Sr. proposed an amendment to the Civil Rights Act that would have kept federal funds flowing to schools that defied court desegregation orders. The measure was defeated by a vote of 74 to 25 with only one Republican voted for it.

[rogue06]

Right, I got that, but rogue wasn't being humorous, at least not intentionally so.

America "losing the peace" is hardly a new concept or unique with the Civil War

[Sparko]

Which leaves the ultimate reason being that the south wanted to maintain the slave industry.

[Cow Poke]

Which leaves the ultimate reason being that the south wanted to maintain the slave industry.

Cotton was the industry, slaves were the means by which it was produced more cheaply.

[Bill the Cat]

Which leaves the ultimate reason being that the south wanted to maintain the slave industry.

Maybe the rich plantation owners, but most of the foot soldiers just wanted to keep their possessions. I HIGHLY recommend you watch Free State of Jones.

[Teallaura]

Maybe the rich plantation owners, but most of the foot soldiers just wanted to keep their possessions. I HIGHLY recommend you watch Free State of Jones.

Jefferson Davis had the same problem Lincoln did - most people weren't willing to fight to either free or keep slaves - making it REALLY difficult to field armies on that basis.

Multiple Southern states had counties secede from them - most of Northern Alabama considered it since none of them really grew cotton or had slaves. Winston County actually seceded.

So Davis argued states rights and Lincoln argued preserving the Union - until the fighting really started and winning became do or die.

[JimL]

Maybe the rich plantation owners, but most of the foot soldiers just wanted to keep their possessions. I HIGHLY recommend you watch Free State of Jones.

And who was threatening to take away their possessions?

[Cow Poke]

And who was threatening to take away their possessions?

Watch the Free State of Jones.

[Teallaura]

And who was threatening to take away their possessions?

The North - which they did. Armies of the period still provisioned off the land - a euphemism for stealing food from whomever they could.

Northern armies requisitioned houses and everything else. They burned what they couldn't take.

But that was war. Everyone knew what happened when wars were fought.

Reconstruction was a 10 year occupation - and it wasn't much better than the war itself.


You've never read To Kill a Mockingbird or seen Gone with the Wind, have you?

[Cow Poke]

The North - which they did. Armies of the period still provisioned off the land - a euphemism for stealing food...

...horses, cattle, chickens, wagons, weapons, natural resources.... anything they needed or wanted. And, yeah, if you couldn't carry it off, you deprived the owners of its use by burning, breaking, destroying...

[Cow Poke]

You've never read To Kill a Mockingbird or seen Gone with the Wind, have you?

Have they made cartoon versions?

[Teallaura]

Have they made cartoon versions?

Gone with the Wind

To Kill a Mockingbird