Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary
So it is your contention that the South supporting slavery, and the North supporting freedom, was not an issue?
Right. That is, as I have been saying, the issue. The Democrat controlled South, with their racist policies, fought the Republican controlled North, with their policies of human rights and freedoms. History is very clear on this.
That the philosophies of those two regions was also not an issue? It just happened that Democrats and Republicans fought because the members of the parties didn't like each other and the sections of where they lived were irrelevant? That's an interesting and unique take and demonstrates that you know nothing of American history and the Civil War.
It seems you are trying to squirm out of your previously held positions where it was 'sections' which were more important and the differences between Democrats and Republicans were not an issue.
I never said that. Try arguing what I said NOT what you want me to have said. I know it's easier for you to do the latter, but it's not honest.
Yes, it seems i'll have to back and retrieve your quotes on the subject as your views on the subject tend to change.
REALLY? Seems to me that slavery was a tradition in the US.
No, it was not. It was a tradition among the Democrats but not the Republicans. And, as I mentioned, much of their philosophies continue to this day.
REALLY? Conservatives have needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into things like black rights, gay rights, women's rights. It is amusing to watch your historical revisionism.
We can discuss those issues later but, again, lets be clear that it was Democrats who opposed Black rights, not Republicans.
That's quite amusing since it was conservatives and their state's rights beliefs and their reactionary "traditions" that caused the Civil War and keep Jim Crow laws in place. Anyone who understands political philosophy knows that change is instituted by liberals. Except you, apparently.
Again. It was Democrats vesrus Republicans. There is no denying that.
That's odd. You seem to believe that everything is based on partisanship. What you don't seem to understand are the basics of the causes of the Civil War. Regional differences and economics. Partisanship was incidental. It's really not that complicated.
No, it's not that complicated at all.
As I said, you don't really understand communism. There are no violations of human rights and freedoms because of communism... simply because every government that has attempted to become communistic has become fascist. It's human nature.
No violation of human rights because of communism?? What a remarkable statement. It should be understood that Communism can only exist under a totalitarian system, and those countries who suffered under communist dictatorships were the worst places in the world in which to live. But when Ronald Regan, a Conservative, called Russia an 'Evil Empire', which it surely was, it was the liberals who protested the most. Anywhere people wanted to be free it was the liberals who protested that freedom, preferring that their ideologies trump basic human rights. Over 100,000,000 died and millions more had their lives ruined because of Communism but, as so often happens with the left, it wasn't the fault of the philosophy, only the methods of carrying it out. Well despite whatever flaws those Communist governments had at the time, the liberals certainly spoke up for them, freedoms and human rights be damned.
I always find it amusing when a conservative partisan tries to define liberalism. They never get it right and it's amusing watching them try.
In fact liberals cannot define contemporary liberalism because it's all over the map. And course their take on Conservatives tends to based on what one person may have said in any particular time and that somehow defines all conservatives. No books on the subject need be read.
In bold. That was a Southern belief. You yourself stated that many Democrats supported Lincoln... true, and something that has torpedoed your argument. This was regional, not partisan.
It was a Democratic belief and still is. And i never said many, I said some, just as I said some Republicans may have supported slavery. But the divisions in the overall philosophies between the two parties were quite clear.
Absolutely when referring to the Civil War. You seem to be getting the participants in the Civil War confused because of partisan historical revisionism.
What 'historical revisionism'? The Democrats controlled the South at time and for over a hundred years after, while the Republicans controlled the North, where Black people were more free. That's not revision at all.
I would strongly advise you to be careful with comments like this.
