Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist

[Rexedgar]

My party isn't out taking over cities, robbing citizens, killing cops, and using Antifa to terrorize innocent people.

Just like the Democrats of the past, they will attack American's on American soil.

My party isn't out there trying to align slavers of 200 years ago to the 21st century. That would be Dumasscrats

:failpail:

 

[Condor060]

So you are for the statues or against them? Hard to tell. LOL

So my answer I provided doesn't clear those cobwebs for you?

They are statues attributing to your own party. I don't care what you do with them.

I am against rioters that don't abide by the constitution or its amendments.

But I am sure you do.

If I spell it out with Cheerios will it help?

 

[vegas giants]

Isn't it you who are speaking out against the treasonous slavers of the confederacy? People of your own party? :lamo

And just like the Democrat slavers of the past, isn't it the new Democrat supporters of BLM and Antifa who are again attacking American civilians?

History does repeat itself, doesn't it.

Democrats back then were awful. Just awful


Today they are great and black people vote 90% democrat because they see how much they fight for civil rights.


Deny that

 

[vegas giants]

So my answer I provided doesn't clear those cobwebs for you?



If I spell it out with Cheerios will it help?

So just to be clear

Condor has no problems with statues of democrats in the public square


Right? LOL

 

[Condor060]

:failpail:

Did you have some elite knowledge nobody else knows about or is your complete dedication to disproving what I said with a single Emoji?

 

[Linc]

Who is defending the Confederate flag in 2020? It's not Democrats.

Nikki Haley

And the answer to your question - who were the confederates? - is easy enough - white conservatives in the South. They literally wanted to "conserve" or preserve their way of life.

I think of Teddy Roosevelt conserving the environment when I think of real conservatives — progress—ive conservatism.

first with slavery, then with a system where white supremacy was the established order. Yes, they were Democrats in the former confederacy. Now they're not.

I look at the American Revolution as our first Civil war; loyalists against colonists. Southern conservatives have continuously fought against the civil/voting rights of minorities for our entire existence as a Xtry.

 

[JasperL]

So we aren't going to cherry pick, are we? I mean a slaver is a slaver. Right? If you owned slaves then you are a racist white supremacist.

Well, NB Forrest made his fortune buying and selling slaves. A slave trader. And it didn't end there, obviously with him.

Even if you decide that the confederates were not treasonous you are a racist white supremacist in todays climate.

I haven't claimed that. What I object to in these threads is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but states' rights or whatever other excuse people come up with. But for slavery, there is no civil war.

There's a principled argument for the idea states had some unstated 'right' to secede. I think it's nonsense myself, but the argument is out there and it's not inherently a defense of white supremacy.

So lets do this thing right.

All former presidents who were slavers are racist white supremacist and need their statues removed

I'm not going to address the position you made up and attributed to me. What I've argued is it's up to the community, and I said if a community wants to honor dead traitors who fought for slavery and white supremacy, that's fine with me. And if a community wants to honor someone else, that's good too.

But the obvious problem with your IMO misguided narrative about people like the founders is there's lots to admire about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, despite their history of owning slaves. Jefferson in particular was a gutless coward IMO on that issue, saying nice things about the problems with slavery, then keeping them because slavery made his nice lifestyle possible, but there isn't any question his contributions in other areas to our country were immense, and self evident.

So as thinking people we can weigh the good with the bad and conclude, yes, Washington owned slaves like many in his era but we can celebrate his life and accomplishments despite that massive failure, and note that failure and still honor the man as a whole. MLK was famous for womanizing. We can acknowledge that weakness and still celebrate what he accomplished.

Well, why would we want to celebrate slave TRADER and Klukker NB Forrest or Jefferson Davis? They're honored in statues BECAUSE they fought for slavery, BECAUSE they were traitors and seceded and fought for white supremacy in the South. You can't name any other contribution to history of either man, and many more like them. That's their mark in history, why the Lost Cause, Jim Crow defenders (in the early 1900s mostly) put them up on pedestals, as a **** you to the idea that blacks were deserving of equal rights.

So, you asked:

This is where we are now? Or are you just for removing the statues YOU think are racist?

The short answer is yes. I'm in favor of what I'm in favor of, and that might be different than what you want, which is why in our system it's not what I want individually that matters. We elect people to represent us. I know you understand that, because you said YOU were in favor of removing statues of former Klukkers, but presumably aren't in favor of tearing down the Jefferson Memorial or the Washington Monument. So you're able to distinguish between NB Forrest and Thomas Jefferson, so why do you think I'm not also able to use my own reading of history and come to different conclusions about different people, despite a commonality of being slave owners?

 

[Condor060]

Democrats back then were awful. Just awful

Today they are great and black people vote 90% democrat because they see how much they fight for civil rights.

Deny that

Blacks vote 90% Dumbasscrat because they are married to the government for welfare. Thats it. Why do you think they have 76% single parent births. The highest in the world of ANY race.

Why don't you provide us all with a list of all those great black specific programs provide by Democrats in the last 50 years.

Lets just see what you think you know.

 

[Rexedgar]

Did you have some elite knowledge nobody else knows about or is your complete dedication to disproving what I said with a single Emoji?

The bucket is in response to the bolded part of your post.....something about “robbing citizens.”

 

[sanman]

Factually the south attacked the north

I again repeat - the victors write the history books. They tend to downplay the events that led to the attack.

The attack clearly took place on southern soil. You make it sound like the soil of Washington, DC was attacked.

If your finger is poked into someone's eye, expect them to swat it away.

 

[vegas giants]

Blacks vote 90% Dumbasscrat because they are married to the government for welfare. Thats it. Why do you think they have 76% single parent births. The highest in the world of ANY race.

Why don't you provide us all with a list of all those great black specific programs provide by Democrats in the last 50 years.

Lets just see what you think you know.

I see. You think black people are lazy moochers. And you wonder why they don't vote GOP?


Man.....you really hate black people

 

[vegas giants]

The victors write the history books. They tend to downplay the events that led to the attack.

Then enlighten us. The south fired 3000 rounds at a US army base. I'm sure if a foreign country did that now it would be no problem......right?

 

[Condor060]

Well, NB Forrest made his fortune buying and selling slaves. A slave trader. And it didn't end there, obviously with him.

I haven't claimed that. What I object to in these threads is the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but states' rights or whatever other excuse people come up with. But for slavery, there is no civil war.

There's a principled argument for the idea states had some unstated 'right' to secede. I think it's nonsense myself, but the argument is out there and it's not inherently a defense of white supremacy.

I'm not going to address the position you made up and attributed to me. What I've argued is it's up to the community, and I said if a community wants to honor dead traitors who fought for slavery and white supremacy, that's fine with me. And if a community wants to honor someone else, that's good too.

But the obvious problem with your IMO misguided narrative about people like the founders is there's lots to admire about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, despite their history of owning slaves. Jefferson in particular was a gutless coward IMO on that issue, saying nice things about the problems with slavery, then keeping them because slavery made his nice lifestyle possible, but there isn't any question his contributions in other areas to our country were immense, and self evident.

So as thinking people we can weigh the good with the bad and conclude, yes, Washington owned slaves like many in his era but we can celebrate his life and accomplishments despite that massive failure, and note that failure and still honor the man as a whole. MLK was famous for womanizing. We can acknowledge that weakness and still celebrate what he accomplished.

Well, why would we want to celebrate slave TRADER and Klukker NB Forrest or Jefferson Davis? They're honored in statues BECAUSE they fought for slavery, BECAUSE they were traitors and seceded and fought for white supremacy in the South. You can't name any other contribution to history of either man, and many more like them. That's their mark in history, why the Lost Cause, Jim Crow defenders (in the early 1900s mostly) put them up on pedestals, as a **** you to the idea that blacks were deserving of equal rights.

So, you asked:

The short answer is yes. I'm in favor of what I'm in favor of, and that might be different than what you want, which is why in our system it's not what I want individually that matters. We elect people to represent us. I know you understand that, because you said YOU were in favor of removing statues of former Klukkers, but presumably aren't in favor of tearing down the Jefferson Memorial or the Washington Monument. So you're able to distinguish between NB Forrest and Thomas Jefferson, so why do you think I'm not also able to use my own reading of history and come to different conclusions about different people, despite a commonality of being slave owners?

I am in favor of tearing down statues of KKK because they attributed nothing to this country but being racist black haters. Thats all they offered.

I am against tearing down ANY former statue that represents EITHER the Union or the Confederacy just because YOU decided only the ones you don't like are racist.

You can't talk around slavery as if was Ok because later certain individuals did a good thing. You are either for or against slavery. You're just being hypocritical. You don't get to choose for everyone else who is racist and who isn't.

We have a constitution. You can either abide by it or move the **** on. You want a statue taken down, then you rally your cause and take a vote. But you don't get to decide for every one else.

 

[sanman]

Then enlighten us. The south fired 3000 rounds at a US army base. I'm sure if a foreign country did that now it would be no problem......right?

The attack clearly took place on southern soil. You make it sound like the soil of Washington, DC was attacked.

If your finger is poked into someone's eye, expect them to swat it away.

vegas giant says: "but his eye was clearly attacking my fingernails!" :roll:

 

[JasperL]

THey aren't defending the flag, they are defending the first amendment. But you wouldn't know that.

It's hard to tell what you're referring to, but there aren't a bunch of confederate flag wavers showing up at a Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden rally. There are a bunch of them showing up at Trump rallies. It was Republicans in e.g. South Carolina trying to keep that confederate flag on state property up, not Democrats. Etc.

And the 1A is almost never implicated in these arguments. I don't support any "ban" on some knuckledragging redneck flying the Confederate losers' flag off the back of his truck. If he wants to fly the Nazi flag next to it, I don't agree with that message, but it's his 1A right to do so without GOVERNMENT interference. If his employer wants to fire his dumb ass, that's also the employer's prerogative and has nothing to do with the 1A. And if NASCAR doesn't want the flag on their property, that's their decision, same way you can ban Bernie lovers from your kitchen if you want.

So the Democrats of the south, who were white supremacist, racist, slavers, and treasonous against the Untied States, who voted for Jim Crow laws to continue to enslave blacks, and created the KKK to terrorize black families into submission, all just changed their minds?

Yeah, you should run with that. Best of luck with that idiocy.

The Southern Strategy argument isn't that those people changed their minds but changed PARTIES. There's a difference. What I know and am proud of is our area has largely moved on from those views, and they're in a distinct minority now, versus the prevailing attitude. That's a good thing. It's also why I so oppose the idiots who support memorials and the flag, which were meant at that time to CELEBRATE white supremacy, declare it as the law of the land in this area, and to celebrate those who fought to sustain it.

That isn't who most of the south is in 2020, GOP or Democrat, and so I wish we'd as a group quit defending NB Forrest statues, for example. I go back to that because Memphis fought for well over a decade for a reasonable compromise on that issue, and the mostly white Republicans in the TN legislature did like they did in lots of states and passed laws taking those decisions OUT of the hands of locals and put them in the hands of a bunch of white legislators or white appointed boards who invariably vote to keep those monuments up, despite local opposition. It's not my fault those are mostly Republicans in this era.

 

[vegas giants]

The attack clearly took place on southern soil. You make it sound like the soil of Washington, DC was attacked.

If your finger is poked into someone's eye, expect them to swat it away.

vegas giant says: "but his eye was clearly attacking my knuckles!" :roll:

Southern soil? It was a US army fort. You don't get to secede and says all this federal property belongs to us now and get out or we will kill you.


They attacked without provocation. They wanted a war.....and got one

 

[Condor060]

I see. You think black people are lazy moochers. And you wonder why they don't vote GOP?


Man.....you really hate black people

So you haven't got a clue or any idea or any list of all those great black specific programs provide by Democrats in the last 50 years.

Got it.

But you will run all day from the question. If you had any guts at all, you would man up and address the question.

But you won't and we both know why.

 

[Condor060]

The bucket is in response to the bolded part of your post.....something about “robbing citizens.”

You don't think private owned stores being looted and burned to the ground while the owners are beaten in the street is robbing citizens?

 

[vegas giants]

So you haven't got a clue or any idea or any list of all those great black specific programs provide by Democrats in the last 50 years.

Got it.

But you will run all day from the question. If you had any guts at all, you would man up and address the question.

But you won't and we both know why.

Oh let me answer. Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, ACA, ….is that enough? If they don't help black people....why would they vote democrat?



You think black people are lazy thugs

 

[sanman]

Southern soil? It was a US army fort. You don't get to secede and says all this federal property belongs to us now and get out or we will kill you.

That's like saying "honey, you don't get to divorce me and not still have my penis inside you"

Your assertion is absurd. Your definition of divorce is absurd.

They attacked without provocation. They wanted a war.....and got one

Seceding from someone means they don't get to keep forts on your territory. Secession doesn't work that way. Union doesn't work that way either.
Unions are supposed to be voluntary. You don't get to maintain a union by the use of forts. Forts should be to deter external aggression, and not to police your own people.

"The Hong Kong people attacked first! They attacked our security patrols on the island!" :roll:

"His eye attacked my fingernails!" :roll:

You're arguing absurdly.

 

[vegas giants]

That's like saying "honey, you don't get to divorce me and not still have my penis inside you"

Your assertion is absurd. Your definition of divorce is absurd.




Seceding from someone means they don't get to keep forts on your territory. Secession doesn't work that way. Union doesn't work that way either.
You don't get to maintain a union by the use of forts. Forts should be to deter external aggression, and not to police your own people.

"The Hong Kong people attacked first! They attacked our security patrols on the island!" :roll:

"His eye attacked my fingernails!" :roll:

You're arguing absurdly.

Absurd!!!! Absurd I tell you. LOL


No. If a state seceded today they would not keep federal property such as nuclear weapons. What a silly idea!!!!


Note.....if you have a problem with how the secession is going....don't fire 3000 rounds at US troops. LOL

 

[Condor060]

It's hard to tell what you're referring to, but there aren't a bunch of confederate flag wavers showing up at a Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden rally. There are a bunch of them showing up at Trump rallies. It was Republicans in e.g. South Carolina trying to keep that confederate flag on state property up, not Democrats. Etc.

And the 1A is almost never implicated in these arguments. I don't support any "ban" on some knuckledragging redneck flying the Confederate losers' flag off the back of his truck. If he wants to fly the Nazi flag next to it, I don't agree with that message, but it's his 1A right to do so without GOVERNMENT interference. If his employer wants to fire his dumb ass, that's also the employer's prerogative and has nothing to do with the 1A. And if NASCAR doesn't want the flag on their property, that's their decision, same way you can ban Bernie lovers from your kitchen if you want.



The Southern Strategy argument isn't that those people changed their minds but changed PARTIES. There's a difference. What I know and am proud of is our area has largely moved on from those views, and they're in a distinct minority now, versus the prevailing attitude. That's a good thing. It's also why I so oppose the idiots who support memorials and the flag, which were meant at that time to CELEBRATE white supremacy, declare it as the law of the land in this area, and to celebrate those who fought to sustain it.

That isn't who most of the south is in 2020, GOP or Democrat, and so I wish we'd as a group quit defending NB Forrest statues, for example. I go back to that because Memphis fought for well over a decade for a reasonable compromise on that issue, and the mostly white Republicans in the TN legislature did like they did in lots of states and passed laws taking those decisions OUT of the hands of locals and put them in the hands of a bunch of white legislators or white appointed boards who invariably vote to keep those monuments up, despite local opposition. It's not my fault those are mostly Republicans in this era.

You want to win this conversation, here's your chance.

Give me a list of black specific opportunities provided by Democrats in the last 50 years. Not bipartisan decisions. What have Democrats done specifically for blacks in the last 50 years.

Go.

 

[JasperL]

I am in favor of tearing down statues of KKK because they attributed nothing to this country but being racist black haters. Thats all they offered.

Well, NB Forrest was unquestionably one of the better military thinkers and leaders of his time. If you want to admire him for those accomplishments, you can - there's lots there to admire. It was in defense of slavery, but he was a great military leader.

So you're ignoring that and condemning him because he was a Klukker, but can ignore the slave owning past of Jefferson and still admire him because of his accomplishments despite being a slave owner. I'm doing nothing different, we just disagree on the margins.

I am against tearing down ANY former statue that represents EITHER the Union or the Confederacy just because YOU decided only the ones you don't like are racist.

You're for tearing down those YOU think are racist, so why don't I have the same prerogative to support or not the tearing down of a given statue? Again, I've said now three times it should be appropriately a COMMUNITY decision. I don't make these decisions, actually, as much as I'd like to be dictator of Tennessee and wave my hand, and have my wishes made into law. Communities should, and do, through the representative process. Why do you have a problem with that?

You can't talk around slavery as if was Ok because later certain individuals did a good thing. You are either for or against slavery. You're just being hypocritical. You don't get to choose for everyone else who is racist and who isn't.

That's not my argument, and I'm not trying to choose for YOU. I don't know where you get this idea that because we disagree that I feel some right to impose my views on you. Again, it's up to COMMUNITIES to decide on particular statues. How many times can I say this and you ignore it?

We have a constitution. You can either abide by it or move the **** on. You want a statue taken down, then you rally your cause and take a vote. But you don't get to decide for every one else.

LOL, that's been my position, stated as clearly as I can, for this whole debate and many others on DP.

 

[Lisa]

I saw this for the first time the other day....I never knew



FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?

You were not aware that Lincoln opposed equal rights? He opposed slavery and splitting the union but he did not support equal rights or believe that black people could be educated. The GOP didnt support that idea for almost 80 years, until the 1940s.

 

[sanman]

Absurd!!!! Absurd I tell you. LOL


No. If a state seceded today they would not keep federal property such as nuclear weapons. What a silly idea!!!!

It wasn't one state seceding from the Union. If half of America seceded today, or a third of it, or even a quarter of it - let's say 10 states in the northeast decided to secede for whatever reason - it's not unreasonable that they'd be allowed to keep their own infrastructure, including even nuclear weapons.

And which nuclear weapons were at Fort Sumter, anyway? It was a building, nothing more.

"Hey, waitasec! If you secede, you can't have buildings! We still get to keep buildings on your soil!" :roll:

Note.....if you have a problem with how the secession is going....don't fire 3000 rounds at US troops. LOL

Forts should not be used to police your own people. That's not how any Union is supposed to work.

If you have to use a Fort and its soldiers to hang onto your Union, then your Union is already gone.

"B-b-but --- SLAVES!!!!!"

Exactly - that was the hat trick, wasn't it? When no basis for the Union existed, then contrive one.

Even senile Joe Biden knows how to pull the same hat trick to win the Oval Office: "Support me! I'll end the racial oppression! I'm a very sincere guy, and I'd never lie about this for my own political gain! Trust me!"

Lincoln would be proud of Joe Biden. I say that without any irony.