Democrats and the KKK

[ObiOne]

40 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Oh, I have seen that claim made on here a thousand times over. Your unwillingness to acknowledge it doesn't make you particularly quick. 

Thousands, yet you can't find one when you are called out as a liar.  Typical dimnut.

[SloppyJoe]

Demokkkrats did it!

[BoyzNdaHood]

11 minutes ago, SloppyJoe said:

Demokkkrats did it!

I'd say RepubliKlans did it!

[ctown81]

14 hours ago, DaveTV1 said:

Do you actually think that the Republican Party is the party of the old ?  Some of the younger generation is beginning to see what Biden is doing to their families, just as I did as a kid under Carter.  My parents were staunch Democrats until Carter.  I'll never repeat that same mistake, and I'm not looking for a dime from the Government.  

 

btw Dave, off topic but here's a short video on the Daughters of the Confederacy and how they influenced the history books we learned from. first half is about monuments and the second half is textbooks. This is where the myth of the war was not about slavery came from.

 

[DaveTV1]

4 hours ago, ctown81 said:

btw Dave, off topic but here's a short video on the Daughters of the Confederacy and how they influenced the history books we learned from. first half is about monuments and the second half is textbooks. This is where the myth of the war was not about slavery came from.

 

Maybe that's the way it was in the early 20th Century, but History books changed a lot even when I was in school.  I realize the DOC wanted to protect their father's image and honor them.  I do think some slave owners did treat their slaves well.  Why would a slave owner want to harm a workhorse as they saw them as ?  I would say that the majority of slave owners were ruthless as well as their foremen.  I'm sure books such as the one shown in this video were taught in Texas schools as well up to the 60's.  

In the History books that I have read slavery was condemned.  I saw the photos of slaves with scars on their backs from being whipped.  I read of the slave uprisings, and about abolitionists that wanted it banned long before the Republican Party.  

[ctown81]

1 hour ago, DaveTV1 said:

Maybe that's the way it was in the early 20th Century, but History books changed a lot even when I was in school.  I realize the DOC wanted to protect their father's image and honor them.  I do think some slave owners did treat their slaves well.  Why would a slave owner want to harm a workhorse as they saw them as ?  I would say that the majority of slave owners were ruthless as well as their foremen.  I'm sure books such as the one shown in this video were taught in Texas schools as well up to the 60's.  

In the History books that I have read slavery was condemned.  I saw the photos of slaves with scars on their backs from being whipped.  I read of the slave uprisings, and about abolitionists that wanted it banned long before the Republican Party.  

Books have changed but a lot of the people from the  boomer generation learned their history from the history that was told back then. A lot of these people from that generation are holding positions of power. Even you till this day believe that the war wasn't about slavery but about tariffs which were not an issue on the 1860s. Others on here think that version of history is the real one. 

[tbird9100]

1 hour ago, ctown81 said:

Books have changed but a lot of the people from the  boomer generation learned their history from the history that was told back then. A lot of these people from that generation are holding positions of power. Even you till this day believe that the war wasn't about slavery but about tariffs which were not an issue on the 1860s. Others on here think that version of history is the real one. 

Was it not about secession?  The north didn’t want states seceding, for whatever reason.  
 

A lot of men fought for the confederacy that didn’t own slaves.  I’d like to see the stats on that’s. My great great grandfather and some of his brothers fought for the confederacy but didn’t own slaves.  Why would men fight for something they didn’t have?

[DaveTV1]

3 hours ago, ctown81 said:

Books have changed but a lot of the people from the  boomer generation learned their history from the history that was told back then. A lot of these people from that generation are holding positions of power. Even you till this day believe that the war wasn't about slavery but about tariffs which were not an issue on the 1860s. Others on here think that version of history is the real one. 

Nothing has changed except what you think was the main cause.  Slavery wasn't illegal after Lincolns inauguration.  Lincoln stated that he wouldn't have abolished slavery to save the Union.  There was no other purpose for the Civil War.  The South felt that they were in bondage so to speak, and that their livelihoods were on the line with the tariffs from Europe that would come with the industrialization of the North.  I read the words of what was said :  Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." @ AMERICAN DIGEST .  Nevertheless, slavery should have never been a part of this countries History.  If that were the case, we would not even be discussing this.  

[DaveTV1]

1 hour ago, tbird9100 said:

Was it not about secession?  The north didn’t want states seceding, for whatever reason.  
 

A lot of men fought for the confederacy that didn’t own slaves.  I’d like to see the stats on that’s. My great great grandfather and some of his brothers fought for the confederacy but didn’t own slaves.  Why would men fight for something they didn’t have?

The land that they lived on.  

[ctown81]

6 hours ago, tbird9100 said:

Was it not about secession?  The north didn’t want states seceding, for whatever reason.  
 

A lot of men fought for the confederacy that didn’t own slaves.  I’d like to see the stats on that’s. My great great grandfather and some of his brothers fought for the confederacy but didn’t own slaves.  Why would men fight for something they didn’t have?

The reason for succession was iver the issue of slavery. 

As for slave owners it was less than 10%. 

[ctown81]

5 hours ago, DaveTV1 said:

Nothing has changed except what you think was the main cause.  Slavery wasn't illegal after Lincolns inauguration.  Lincoln stated that he wouldn't have abolished slavery to save the Union.  There was no other purpose for the Civil War.  The South felt that they were in bondage so to speak, and that their livelihoods were on the line with the tariffs from Europe that would come with the industrialization of the North.  I read the words of what was said :  Lincoln: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." @ AMERICAN DIGEST .  Nevertheless, slavery should have never been a part of this countries History.  If that were the case, we would not even be discussing this.  

It wasn't about the tarrifs. That's was part ofnthe "lost cause" revision of history. That was the point of the video. The tariff issue was given much more prominence when they started rewriting Southern History. As a matter of fact I believe the first 7 states to secede from the Union stated slavery as the reason due to Lincolns election.  

[tbird9100]

1 hour ago, ctown81 said:

The reason for succession was iver the issue of slavery. 

As for slave owners it was less than 10%. 

So 90% fought for slavery and didn’t participate?!  Dang.  Slavery was a portion of the reason.  Looks like about 10% according to you.  

[ctown81]

9 minutes ago, tbird9100 said:

So 90% fought for slavery and didn’t participate?!  Dang.  Slavery was a portion of the reason.  Looks like about 10% according to you.  

That would make sense huh? That's not the case though. Just look at the secession letters of each state. Their reasons are in black and white. As for those who didn't participate in slavery, DING DING! That's the history of war in a nutshell. Rich people upset and poor people manipulated into fighting for them. 

[Youngcoach123]

51 minutes ago, ctown81 said:

That would make sense huh? That's not the case though. Just look at the secession letters of each state. Their reasons are in black and white. As for those who didn't participate in slavery, DING DING! That's the history of war in a nutshell. Rich people upset and poor people manipulated into fighting for them. 

Still hold true today. Rich peoples wars fought by the poors. 

[DaveTV1]

14 hours ago, ctown81 said:

It wasn't about the tarrifs. That's was part ofnthe "lost cause" revision of history. That was the point of the video. The tariff issue was given much more prominence when they started rewriting Southern History. As a matter of fact I believe the first 7 states to secede from the Union stated slavery as the reason due to Lincolns election.  

It was more so than you think.  I do admit that slavery was a part of the reason, but not the only reason.  I don't think my Great Grandfather would have joined the South if Slavery was the only reason that the South seceded.  He would have went to join the North first thing from the letters that were preserved.  

[ctown81]

9 minutes ago, DaveTV1 said:

It was more so than you think.  I do admit that slavery was a part of the reason, but not the only reason.  I don't think my Great Grandfather would have joined the South if Slavery was the only reason that the South seceded.  He would have went to join the North first thing from the letters that were preserved.  

Man if it's online i'd love to see them. That's VERY rare to have. Here's a link of the Secession Ordinances of a few states. Georgia were the only ones to mention tariffs indirectly. Don't doubt for one second that they could have been lied to to fight which is inline with history. Poor white southerners really didn't have anything to fight for.  I'm going to look up some recruitment posters the confederacy used.The ladies of that group i posted about were just trying to give their rich fathers and grandfathers a glorious name. 

Hate to say it, I made a post in response to @Youngcoach123 stating that most poor whites aspired to be rich slave owners, but that was purely opinion. I've been researching the poor southerners during the slavery years and I can see why they are NEVER talked about.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

[ObiOne]

13 hours ago, ctown81 said:

Hate to say it, I made a post in response to @Youngcoach123 stating that most poor whites aspired to be rich slave owners, but that was purely opinion. I've been researching the poor southerners during the slavery years and I can see why they are NEVER talked about.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

I'd wager that 95%+ of the folks on Smoaky ancestors were poor southerners.  Not a lot of elite rich coming on here to talk smack about fball or politics.