I'm originally from a Northern state and I'd like ti know the meaning of the above phrase. I mean the South, where I am anyways, looks pretty good to me, in some areas a whole lot better then cetain Northern areas. I hear this phrase alot, and am just wondering what's behind it.

So people like Meade Skelton can cope with fact their ancestors were defeated in the Civil War and lost their plantations.

It happened a century and a half ago, get over it.

The phrase is NOT "The south is going to rise again". The correct version is "The souths gonna do it again", penned by literary genius Charles Daniels in his epic piece "Fire on the Mountain".

From the North Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm originally from a Northern state and I'd like
> ti know the meaning of the above phrase.

It means "I'm a stupid, annoying redneck. And I'm proud of that."

From the North Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm originally from a Northern state and I'd like
> ti know the meaning of the above phrase. I mean
> the South, where I am anyways, looks pretty good
> to me, in some areas a whole lot better then
> cetain Northern areas. I hear this phrase alot,
> and am just wondering what's behind it.


You probably live in Richmond.

From the North Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm originally from a Northern state and I'd like
> ti know the meaning of the above phrase. I mean
> the South, where I am anyways, looks pretty good
> to me, in some areas a whole lot better then
> cetain Northern areas. I hear this phrase alot,
> and am just wondering what's behind it.

Prior to 1860, the North's agricultural prospects were not as potentially prosperous as those in the South and they still aren't. This was and is due to the combination of less fertile soil and a harsher climate. This lead the North in an industrial direction. The United States won "The Late Unpleasantness" so, they earned the privilege of writing the history.

The United States will tell you that the conflict was over slavery. The rest of us know that it was about state's rights. The South gathered its own political and feeble but earnest military power and rose up against the oppressive anti-state's rights policies of the United States government.

Although the South was defeated, their cause was just and the strong feelings against a centralized government headquartered in Washington, DC "coming down South" and telling us how to live persist to this day. Many Southern hardliners feel the South will again rise up in protest against those continued policies which are against the traditional way of Southern life.

I have no doubt this post will draw flames...flame me if you must, I would expect nothing less from Fairfax Underground. Preemptively, I'd like to close with a reminder that as you flame me, Fairfax, VA is the Strongbox of the Confederacy.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the North Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I'm originally from a Northern state and I'd
> like
> > ti know the meaning of the above phrase.
>
> It means "I'm a stupid, annoying redneck. And I'm
> proud of that."

Rednecks are in the North and Midwest too, you idiot.

My brother likes to quote that phrase. I told him "ya and you'll get your ass handed to you again too!

learnyourself2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Rednecks are in the North and Midwest too, you idiot.

Plenty of'em up north. They don't go around announcing stuff like "the south will rise" though.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> learnyourself2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Rednecks are in the North and Midwest too, you
> idiot.
>
> Plenty of'em up north. They don't go around
> announcing stuff like "the south will rise"
> though.


Not really. Most of this comes from the fact that BEFORE THE WAR.. the South was actually the richest part of the country. It had the most wealth- and it had an Aristocracy. It had the best families. Northern families tried to emulate the South and its heritage, not the other way around.

"The South will rise again" refers to the Old South, and the Aristocracy of the South that fell when the North destroyed all the land and the wealth that once was. Now the South is the poorer part of the country.. although I have to say, technically Northern Virgina is still the South- and it has one of the highest incomes. Also parts of Alabama, Texas, are pretty wealthy too. But overall, the South suffers poverty compared to the rest of the country after the severe devestation that happened 150 years ago.

I'm from the North also, if you travel through states like Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire you'll see loads of "rednecks". New Hampshire has some heavy mountain terrain and you run into folk right out of the novel "Deliverance". It is the only one of the New England states you can buy fireworks, which is interesting.

Bobby Lee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The United States will tell you that the conflict
> was over slavery. The rest of us know that it was
> about state's rights. The South gathered its own
> political and feeble but earnest military power
> and rose up against the oppressive anti-state's
> rights policies of


And the people who try to remove slavery from the causes/issues of the Civil War are just deluding you. Yes, technically you could argue it was over state's right - but what do you think triggered those debates? What fueled the strong emotional sentiment attached to it? What created a divide and animosity in the decades preceding the Civil War? That's right - slavery.

A full blown war over states rights would never have erupted if slavery wasn't the underlying issue fueling the fire. It was competing moral visions that led to fighting, and slavery was the biggest and key component of that.

Answer me this one question. If the South, by some miracle and if God was on their side, had actually beat the Union in that war, do you fucking honestly believe we'd have slavery today? Slavery was a "White Elephant" whose time was up. Face it.

All you southeners!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Answer me this one question. If the South, by
> some miracle and if God was on their side, had
> actually beat the Union in that war, do you
> fucking honestly believe we'd have slavery today?
> Slavery was a "White Elephant" whose time was up.
> Face it.


No, we wouldnt have slavery. Modern technology would eliminate the need for slavery. God isn't on any side during a War. Slavery had little to do with the War For Southern Independence.

Slavery was going when "modern tech" was in effect. Modern tech for that time in history, it's all relative. Cotton Gin (Modern tech) did not eliminate slavery, if the south could have gotten away with it, they'd still have slavery today.

Slavery was in motion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slavery was going when "modern tech" was in
> effect. Modern tech for that time in history,
> it's all relative. Cotton Gin (Modern tech) did
> not eliminate slavery, if the south could have
> gotten away with it, they'd still have slavery
> today.


The cotton gin, lol. Hardly modern. They didnt even have electricity going on back in the 19th Century. I hardly think so, considering Slavery was already on the way out in the South. Many slaves were free long before the war happened, and it was becoming so, that they were having servants and ex slaves became share croppers. That was not an issue . The issue was States Rights.

Slavery was in motion Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cotton Gin (Modern tech) did not eliminate slavery

I don't buy the idea that modern technology would have eliminated the need for slavery.

Take cotton first. The cotton gin did not eliminate slavery because it INCREASED the need for cotton by making it cheaper, which in turn increased the need for field hands to plant and pick the cotton (the cotton gin only reduced the labor involved in processing cotton that had already been picked).

Antebellum industrialization in the NORTH similarly increased the need for cotton, which again meant more slaves were needed to plant and pick the cotton.

The key to reducing the need for cotton picking labor - a commercially manufactured mechanical cotton picker - did not arrive until after WWII.

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/holley.cottonpicker


The subject of cotton aside, there remains the fact that if you are paying your labor, it's very difficult to compete with someone who doesn't have to.

I think we would have seen large corporations in the south that owned entire labor forces. Some Confederate car company would have run Ford out of business in the 1920s by staffing assembly lines with slave labor.

Slavery intact, the Confederacy would have become the manufacturing hub of the world, as China is today, along with other low-cost labor markets.

Butchie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Slavery was in motion Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Cotton Gin (Modern tech) did not eliminate
> slavery
>
> I don't buy the idea that modern technology would
> have eliminated the need for slavery.
>
> Take cotton first. The cotton gin did not
> eliminate slavery because it INCREASED the need
> for cotton by making it cheaper, which in turn
> increased the need for field hands to plant and
> pick the cotton (the cotton gin only reduced the
> labor involved in processing cotton that had
> already been picked).
>
> Antebellum industrialization in the NORTH
> similarly increased the need for cotton, which
> again meant more slaves were needed to plant and
> pick the cotton.
>
> The key to reducing the need for cotton picking
> labor - a commercially manufactured mechanical
> cotton picker - did not arrive until after WWII.
>
> http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/holley.cottonpi
> cker
>
>
> The subject of cotton aside, there remains the
> fact that if you are paying your labor, it's very
> difficult to compete with someone who doesn't have
> to.
>
> I think we would have seen large corporations in
> the south that owned entire labor forces. Some
> Confederate car company would have run Ford out of
> business in the 1920s by staffing assembly lines
> with slave labor.
>
> Slavery intact, the Confederacy would have become
> the manufacturing hub of the world, as China is
> today, along with other low-cost labor markets.


Your absolutely right. Economics and heavy profit motive would have been one hell of an inticing motive to keep it in motion.

When Meade sings with the Gay Mens Chorus, his south will rise again and again.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2011 06:33AM by Radiophile.

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the people who try to remove slavery from the
> causes/issues of the Civil War are just deluding
> you. Yes, technically you could argue it was over
> state's right - but what do you think triggered
> those debates? What fueled the strong emotional
> sentiment attached to it? What created a divide
> and animosity in the decades preceding the Civil
> War? That's right - slavery.
>
> A full blown war over states rights would never
> have erupted if slavery wasn't the underlying
> issue fueling the fire. It was competing moral
> visions that led to fighting, and slavery was the
> biggest and key component of that.

I've been on the record for some time now that the United States will again have a Civil War and it will again be triggered by states' rights. This time however, the issue will be tobacco farming and the related production of tobacco products.

The United States government has been seeking to reduce tobacco use, farming and production for 30+ years and it's only just in the last 10 years been getting traction. 2008 was the first year in the history of the American tobacco industry that they exported and sold more of their products OUTSIDE the United States than INSIDE the United States.

I work in the hospitality management industry. Marriott's hotels are now ALL non-smoking EXCEPT in one city in the United States. Can you guess which? My beloved Richmond. Why? Because the tobacco interests there said there were plenty of other hotels in the area that would be delighted to maintain a welcoming environment for smokers and they'd take their business elsewhere. Marriott would've ceased to exist in Richmond.

As a former smoker the prospect of the United States government dictating tobacco policies to a state like Virginia where tobacco is king presents an interesting personal dilemma. I support a state's right to govern itself but clearly tobacco is an extreme health risk. I will continue to choose not to use these products but I wouldn't let the government tell me how my state can grow and produce it. Why? Because that's how you get on the slippery slope of a federal government lording itself over the sovereign states. Which is PRECISELY the same reason the South fought the first "Late Unpleasantness". Not everyone in the South owned slaves.

When you start letting a centralized government bend you over...it's a lot easier for political anal violation to repeat itself.

Tobacco companies will never go broke as long as they continue to export their products overseas. The anti-tobacco coalition is a joke overseas. Companies will never prohibit their employees from smoking on company property or in restaurants like they do here. The other day I was watching a program about Russia and a large majority of the people were smoking in the restaurant, at work, all over. It must be the same in Europe also.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When Meade sings with the Gay Mens Chorus, his
> sough will rise again and again.


lol

Tobacco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tobacco companies will never go broke as long as
> they continue to export their products overseas.
> The anti-tobacco coalition is a joke overseas.
> Companies will never prohibit their employees from
> smoking on company property or in restaurants like
> they do here. The other day I was watching a
> program about Russia and a large majority of the
> people were smoking in the restaurant, at work,
> all over. It must be the same in Europe also.

This is my point. I can imagine where the U.S. government would say in the name of improving global health US tobacco companies can no longer export. We already have this in place in other industries. Defense and munitions manufacturers are not permitted to sell their wares overseas to any country they please. Oh sure, they get out into the black market but it's not like General Dynamics is taking orders from China.

Then again, this is not really a good example because the US government in the name of its own defense needs competitive and strong weapon and vehicle development competition for its own purposes so, they provide enough revenue internally to keep these companies more than viable. This is obviously not the case with tobacco. If the government had its wish, tobacco would cease to exist however the tobacco lobby has been very successful in serving their industry's interests.

From the North Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm originally from a Northern state and I'd like
> ti know the meaning of the above phrase. I mean
> the South, where I am anyways, looks pretty good
> to me, in some areas a whole lot better then
> cetain Northern areas. I hear this phrase alot,
> and am just wondering what's behind it.


The South was extremely downtrodden up until even the past decade. I don't think you realize just how badly the Civil War impacted the South, with entire cities destroyed and massive amounts of industry and labor forever wiped out.

As for towns in the North, especially with regard to NY and New England, they've done a far better job maintaining decent size and quality. Down South it has become inundated with hodgepodge McMansions and the like.

Also, Numbers, I've never heard it phrased any way other than how the OP phrased it, except with a "Shall" in place of the "Will".

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

You folks are really something. I have read the posts and I have something to say to ALL of you. Question; Did you ever hear the saying "Nobody ever wins in a fight"? Well then, That's what is really going on here. Resentment from the south, and the pride of the north. What good came from this altercation anyway? Look what it has done to the people of this nation. Just use your brain for a minute whether your a southern gent or a northern one like myself, lets get it right and work together to make things better for all of us!

Just imagine what it would be like if the south had won the war. The northern nation would be like a big Detroit,an economic basket case run by corrupt, inept libtards and nigs! The southern nation would be flourishing, with non-union shops everywhere, and would probably have a great president, such as George Allen!

Yes. Divide & conquer. Us ching changs need living space.

It means there will be slavery again!

mr.reality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It means there will be slavery again!


Yes there will. Chinese enslaving whites.

Yes, but the chinese and Koreans would bargain with each other over the price of a white slave. For example: me will pay only 20 dollar for that dumb redneck, mama San!

It's
"The South shall come again"
Attachments:

Csb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, but the chinese and Koreans would bargain
> with each other over the price of a white slave.
> For example: me will pay only 20 dollar for that
> dumb redneck, mama San!


Fock the Koreans. White man wannabe. We own you too.

ok i'll explain

first, am I allowed to quote Jindal ?

Where the hell do you get rednecks are in the north and west. The definition of a redneck is a working middle class man from the rual areas of the south. Learn the meaning of a redneck you idiot. Yall are called Yankees not rednecks!

Hey OP scholar, they call it Google.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

>I hear this phrase alot, and am just wondering what's behind it.

What's behind it is this: the south never really recovered from the drubbing it got in the Civil War. Not so much in absolute terms as in relative terms; the infrastructure got fixed and there's MacDonalds down south now, but the south used to be the dogs balls economically. Of our pre-war presidents, pretty much all were from the south or named 'Addams'. Slavery was not only a huge underpinning of the South's economy, it helped power the growth of America.

With all that gone, the south never regained the prominence it had. To this day the south is a great place to get a college education (super-low tuition given the strength of the schools) and retire. For what you pay here for a modest 3 bedroom, you can buy a mansion down south, with land. The whole 'south will rise again' thing isn't just about history, it's still going on.

There's other stuff too. There's a real 'culture of honor' stuff going on down south, which is hard to reconcile with belonging to a conquered nation. This is easier to see more clearly if you talk to old-school Germans or Japanese. Most of the folks born lately really don't care about WWII but even those born a generation or two after the war - they can be sensitive about these issues. 150 years later and some southerners are too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2014 11:37AM by abelard.

It means once the Viagra delivery truck can make it through the swamps and bogs and deliver the first doses to confederate wannabees they may achieve a partial erection for a few minutes.

Then they'll he pissed off again and go build a bigger truck or punch their wife/sister (same).

You lost! Evolve!

Butchie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Slavery was in motion Wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Cotton Gin (Modern tech) did not eliminate slavery
>
>
> I don't buy the idea that modern technology would
> have eliminated the need for slavery.
>
> Take cotton first. The cotton gin did not
> eliminate slavery because it INCREASED the need
> for cotton by making it cheaper, which in turn
> increased the need for field hands to plant and
> pick the cotton (the cotton gin only reduced the
> labor involved in processing cotton that had
> already been picked).
>
> Antebellum industrialization in the NORTH
> similarly increased the need for cotton, which
> again meant more slaves were needed to plant and
> pick the cotton.
>
> The key to reducing the need for cotton picking
> labor - a commercially manufactured mechanical
> cotton picker - did not arrive until after WWII.
>
> http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/holley.cottonpicker
>
>
> The subject of cotton aside, there remains the
> fact that if you are paying your labor, it's very
> difficult to compete with someone who doesn't have
> to.
>
> I think we would have seen large corporations in
> the south that owned entire labor forces. Some
> Confederate car company would have run Ford out of
> business in the 1920s by staffing assembly lines
> with slave labor.
>
> Slavery intact, the Confederacy would have become
> the manufacturing hub of the world, as China is
> today, along with other low-cost labor markets.

Great post!

I wish I had written that!

Oops, I did!
Attachments:

So what does it mean?

If people that say "the south will rise again" are anything like Meade Skelton and this Dylann Storm Roof kid, the country has nothing to worry about.

Its the newest ad campaign slogan for Viagra.

Actually the South did better after the civil war and didn't change much. It did let most of it negros go North the promise land and they made the northern cities like Chicago, New York, Detroit, Boston, St Louis, Baltimore, Kansas City, New Jersey, etc great with their inventions especially the riot and ghettos.

Couldn't have worked out better. I bet the liberals will think twice before they fight another civil war to free negros.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

It means that democrats will power over the freedoms the republicans have fought for for the blacks and minorities and oppress and enslave them once again.

Voting democrat made it happen.

It means the North kicked the shit out of a bunch of cotton farmers.

South Lost Deal With It Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It means the North kicked the shit out of a bunch
> of cotton farmers.


True. But at least it cost the North an estimated 100K more dead and severely wounded than the South incurred to do it. The South didn't have hundreds of thousands of poor, illiterate Irish and Germans pouring off of boats like New York and Boston had, which provided massive reinforcements of men. Coupled with the manufacturing advantage of the North and the immoral cause that the South was ultimately fighting to protect, it was always a matter of time before the North would win.

For the most part, the South was fighting a defensive war until they realized they could never keep the North out with the never-ending supply of men that the North had coming in every day from Europe. When Grant took over, the Northern generals stopped caring about casualties and started losing 25% more men in engagements, but the North also stopped losing the majority of engagements like they had previously. Lee should have put massive forces into taking Washington and seizing Lincoln and then suing for peace. Instead, he decided to invade Pennsylvania and cut off D.C.

Slavery was immoral. The right side won.

South has never recovered from the shellacking the North put upon their asses. They are branded as "losers" for posterity. They are and remain in the doldrums as far as a economic base of operations, they have large industry but the "brain power" is situated in the Northern States like NYC. They just tell the South what to do and when to do with really fucking clear instructions on how to do it right the first time, which is a chore in itself for most southern workers. They feel "scrap" and "seconds" is fine for business.

It means the South put 650,000 greasy northern mechanics in Southern dirt.

Well the north got all the negros now. At least in the south, the negros were taught skills and were well employed. Now in the north the negros are plentiful as hell, mostly uneducated freeloaders, welfare hunters, Mo Money wanters for nothing, don't want to do shit, and kill each other and a lot liberals too.

It couldn't have worked out better for the south. Still our southern negros are well behaved.

Never Run Out of Ammo

Guns Don't Kill People. People Kill People

Them or You

The two most important days in your life are the day your were born and and the day you find out why

To Bobby Lee and other apologists for the traitorist and immoral southern secessionists and slaveholders:

You woild be funny if you were not so pathetic. I don't understand why you insist on denying that the drive to continue and expand the brutal, dehumanizing, and immoral institution of slavery on this continent was the reason why the south attempted to secede from the United States and the cause of our civil war.

I liken you to holocaust deniers.

The evidence is overwhelming. South Carolina was the first state to attempt to secede from the union after the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1860.

There are a number of contemporaneous documents produced by the South Carolina Legislature, as well as by bodies constituted at the direction of the Legislature, that make it crystal clear that the state's attempted secession was motivated by the its fear that the northern states would refuse to permit the expansion of slavery onto the country's western territories, its indignation over the refusal of many northern states to return escaped "fugitive" slaves to their slaveholders in the south, and its fear that the north, ultimately, woild abolish slavery.

The Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union was a proclamation issued on December 24, 1860, by the government of South Carolina to explain its reasons for seceding from the United States. It followed the brief Ordinance of Secession that had been issued on December 20. The declaration is a product of a convention organized by the state's government in the month following the election of Abraham Lincoln as U.S. President, where it was drafted in a committee headed by Christopher Memminger. The declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery".

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

To Bobby Lee and other apologists for those who held slaves or took up arms to defend the right of themselves or otherwise others to hold slaves, we all have relatives or ancestors who did unsavory and immoral things. That does not mean we stop loving them. But we don't have to defend what they did or try to re-write history in order to make them look good.

You are not responsible for their evil acts. But when you defend those acts, you DO take on the rotting smell of the evil that they perpetrated.

Lol, the brutal, inhuman, diabolical, and evil institution of slavery was perfectly legal in Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware, and West Virginia. All of those states were Union states. Union slave states, to be specific. So I guess the slave owners in Kentucky were so outraged that slavery was legal in Alabama that they went to war to free the slaves. Ya wanna give me just a small phukkin break?

That George Washington was a Southern, slave owning secessionist. So was Thomas Jefferson.

I make no apology for any person who held slaves, regardless of what state that person resided in.

The fact remains, that the states that attempted to secede did so because they wanted to maintain and expand the evil institution of slavery. The fact remains that, following the end of the civil war, slavery was abolished throughout the entirety of the country.

I find it pathetic and amusing that people today defend those who fought to preserve the horrific, genocidal institution.

At least in Germany, you don't find quite so many people who today defend the ovens and concentration camps of the 1930s and 1940s.

It means Republicans are traitors in waiting is what it means.

I make no apology for any person who held slaves, regardless of what state that person resided in.

The fact remains, that the states that attempted to secede did so because they followed in the footsteps of George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. The fact remains that slavery was legal in Kentucky until thec 15th amendment abolished it. Kentucky was a non-seceded loyal slave state.

I find it pathetic and amusing that people today attack those who fought to achieve political independence just as their slaveowning secessionist forefathers fought for their independence.

At least in Germany, you don't find quite so many people who today defend the ovens and concentration camps of the 1930s and 1940s.

What a monumental dumbass. Lincoln was a Republican moron. Jeff Davis was the Democrat, you ignorant moron.

Actually the quality of life the slaves enjoyed was better than free negroes in the north. By far.

Henry and his darling wife know each other well. She knows that his pet name for his schlong is "The South." Even though due to his advanced age (snow on the roof but still fire in the furnace) his sporadic ED is only a glitch and not a full-time affliction. So in their pillow talk Henry confides to her that "The South will rise again." So she hasn't started placing casual encouter ads on CL yet.

Yer welcome.

The Reoublican party, back in the 1850s and 1869s was an upstart, regional party that was founded on the platform of limiting the spread of, if not abolishing slavery.

Unfortunately, by a century later, the Republican Party had done a 180 degree turn. Richard Nixon pursued a "southern strategy" in the 1968 presidential election that was designed to woo the votes of southern racists who were opposed to civil rights legislation (such as the Voting Rights Act, the Public Accomodations Act, and Fair Housing Act) that was championed ny northern and western Democrats.

Because of the southern racists' opposition to civil rights legislation, they left the Democratic Party I'm drives and became Republicans, cementing a dramatic shift wherein the South became a stronghold of support for a newly minted racist and bigoted Republican Party.

And so, yes. Lincoln was a Republican and Davis was a Democrat in 1860. But there is absolutely no doubt that in today's political paradigm, Limcoln would be a Democrat (supporting civil rights, abolition of slavery, and a strong federal government) while Davis would be a Republican (supporting slavery, states rights, and a weak federal government).

YouAreSoFunny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Reoublican party, back in the 1850s and 1869s
> was an upstart, regional party that was founded on
> the platform of limiting the spread of, if not
> abolishing slavery.
>
> Unfortunately, by a century later, the Republican
> Party had done a 180 degree turn. Richard Nixon
> pursued a "southern strategy" in the 1968
> presidential election that was designed to woo the
> votes of southern racists who were opposed to
> civil rights legislation (such as the Voting
> Rights Act, the Public Accomodations Act, and Fair
> Housing Act) that was championed ny northern and
> western Democrats.
>
> Because of the southern racists' opposition to
> civil rights legislation, they left the Democratic
> Party I'm drives and became Republicans, cementing
> a dramatic shift wherein the South became a
> stronghold of support for a newly minted racist
> and bigoted Republican Party.
>
> And so, yes. Lincoln was a Republican and Davis
> was a Democrat in 1860. But there is absolutely no
> doubt that in today's political paradigm, Limcoln
> would be a Democrat (supporting civil rights,
> abolition of slavery, and a strong federal
> government) while Davis would be a Republican
> (supporting slavery, states rights, and a weak
> federal government).

Childish, superficial drivel, and unworthy of a reply. But I do have something fun for ya :)


"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

-Abraham Lincoln, 1858


Hows that for supporting "civil rights"? lol....

I can pick out quotes that Lyndon Johnson made just. Entire assuming the vice presidency that are hostile to civil rights. But by the time his presidency ended, he had the greatest record in support of civil rights of any president.

Great challenges challenge great leaders to become greater than they once were.

The emancipation and the push for congressional adoption of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution override what Lincoln might ha pave believed and said years earlier.

Rewrite to correct typos:

I can pick out quotes that Lyndon Johnson made just before assuming the vice presidency that are hostile to civil rights. But by the time his presidency ended, he had amassed the greatest record in support of civil rights of any president before or since.

Great challenges challenge great leaders to become greater than they once were.

Lincoln's issuance of the emancipation proclamation and his push for congressional adoption of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution override what He might have believed and said years earlier.

When the great challenge of southern secession reared its head, Lincoln stepped up to the plate and did the right thing; Davis led the fight to preserve slavery.

The Republican Party lost its way when it turned to the south for votes. Ever since then its been a steaming pile of shit.

You are so right, Gerry!

Not that I am super proud to be a Democrat (my part has ots flaws, for sure), but I would be ashamed to be a Republican today.

The laughable farce that the Confederates fought to "preserve slavery" is comic-book history. If all they wanted to do was "preserve slavery", they just would have stayed in the Union like Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri.
Slavery was perfectly legal in the United Sates. "preserve slavery". What rot.

The Democrat Party lost its way when it turned to the north for votes. Ever since then its been a steaming pile of shit.

You are so right, Gerry!

Not that I am super proud to be a Republican (my part has ots flaws, for sure), but I would be ashamed to be a Democrat today.