PDA

View Full Version : The Good Ole South



Cancel7
10-24-2006, 07:05 PM
I don't know if this has already been discussed here, I might have missed it. I thought it would be cool to give all of the republicans an opportunity to call me a "race baiter" and claim that this add is not racist and that only a pinhead would claim it was.

Now of course, given the history of the mythology of the "black rapist," we all know what this add is saying.

'Did you hear that Ford f'd a white woman"

'I sures did Billy Bob, and they way I hear it coulda been more than one. I is sure worried he is going to f my blonde daughter."

"That's a black guy for you. Give him the vote and he wants a white woman."

But, the denials are always fun to watch.

Tennessee ad ignites internal GOP squabbling
Corker calls for own party to pull spot some Republicans denounce as racist
By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC


Updated: 8:33 p.m. ET Oct 24, 2006
With their majority in the Senate potentially hanging in the balance, Republicans were bickering among themselves over an advertisement in the particularly nasty campaign in Tennessee that even some Republicans have denounced as racist.

The dispute pitted former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker, the GOP candidate for the seat held by Senate Republican leader Bill Frist, against his own party leadership Tuesday after it rebuffed his call to pull the ad, which lampoons Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr.’s reputation as a man about town.

In the ad, a young white actress playing the stereotype of a “dumb blonde” talks about meeting Ford, a 36-year-old bachelor who is black, “at the Playboy party.” At the end of the ad, she winks and says to the camera, “Harold — call me.”

The ad brought immediate criticism from the Ford campaign and the NAACP, whose Washington office called it “a powerful innuendo that plays to pre-existing prejudices about African-American men and white women.”

Ford told MSNBC-TV: “I know that they are a little desperate and doing the things that you do when you get desperate in a campaign.”

Corker himself called the ad “distasteful” Tuesday, telling MSNBC-TV, “I think it ought to come down.” Meanwhile, Bill Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine, criticized it in an interview on CNN as “a very serious appeal to a racist sentiment.”


Mehlman: Ad’s fine, and it’s not our fault
But Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Tuesday that he saw nothing wrong with the ad.

“After the comments by Mr. Corker and former Sen. Cohen, I looked at the ad, and I don’t agree with that characterization of it,” Mehlman told NBC’s Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert, in an interview as part of MSNBC-TV’s daylong Battleground America report.


“I think that there is nothing more repugnant in our society than people who try to divide Americans along racial lines, and I would denounce any ad that I thought did,” said Mehlman, who addressed the NAACP last year, apologizing for the Republican Party’s race-tinged “Southern strategy” during the 1970s and ’80s.

“I happen not to believe that ad does,” he said, adding that even if he wanted to pull the ad, he couldn’t.

Even though a woman’s voice discloses that “the Republican National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising,” Mehlman said the RNC was not, in fact, responsible. He said the ad was produced by an independent group contracted by the RNC, with whom he is prohibited from communicating.

“The way that process works under the campaign reform laws is I write a check to an independent individual and that person’s responsible for spending money in certain states,” he said. Beyond that, he said, the RNC is out of the loop.

Ford dismisses GOP explanation
But Ford said Republican leaders were being disingenuous.

“I do know that if my opponent wanted this ad pulled down, he could get it pulled down,” Ford said. White House press secretary Tony Snow appeared to support Ford on that point, telling Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” that “if he wants it to come off [the air], it’ll come off.”

But MSNBC’s chief Washington correspondent, Norah O’Donnell, reported that Republican strategists told her that they had no intention of pulling the ad and were looking forward to its running right up to Election Day in two weeks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15403071/ For Full Story.

Damocles
10-24-2006, 07:11 PM
Wow. I can't imagine such an ad even running here... It would be way beyond what anybody would be comfortable with...

Cancel7
10-24-2006, 07:17 PM
Wow. I can't imagine such an ad even running here... It would be way beyond what anybody would be comfortable with...


Well, I am very glad to hear that.

maineman
10-24-2006, 08:23 PM
hey...just ask Dixie...racism is DEAD in the south and has been since the very day after the civil rights laws were passed.

Hadn't you heard?

the south is totally colorblind now and has been for a generation. racism only exists in the north now......according to Dixie.

Cancel7
10-25-2006, 05:11 AM
hey...just ask Dixie...racism is DEAD in the south and has been since the very day after the civil rights laws were passed.

Hadn't you heard?

the south is totally colorblind now and has been for a generation. racism only exists in the north now......according to Dixie.

Well I'm sure Dixie could explain for us, and in no more than 5,000 words, why this is not racism, and why it's all the Northern pinhead's fault anyway.

Care4all
10-25-2006, 05:28 AM
This is disgusting, what a bunch of Racist looney toons in the republican party in tennessee....

someday, god willing, their "karma" will come back to bite them.

:(

klaatu
10-25-2006, 07:32 AM
Im flabbergasted! I wouldnt call them looney... just plain dumb asses for thinking thay could get away with this..and in this day in age. In my opinion Harold Ford is one of the most promising young Democrats on the scene....

Care4all
10-25-2006, 07:35 AM
I think he has alot of promise too Klaatu....he's fairly moderate imo.

Damocles
10-25-2006, 07:35 AM
I just wonder who really cares if he is a playboy? Why does this crap matter to people?

Cypress
10-25-2006, 08:38 AM
Im flabbergasted! I wouldnt call them looney... just plain dumb asses for thinking thay could get away with this..and in this day in age. In my opinion Harold Ford is one of the most promising young Democrats on the scene....

It's tennessee klaatu.

There's still a segment of the voting population that will get inflamed about a black man chasing white women. Whether they publically admit it, or not.

Jarod
10-25-2006, 08:42 AM
I have not seen the ad, but I am shocked the Republicans are so dumb! I dont know why, I am shocked by them about once a week.. and they keep winning!

Prakosh
10-25-2006, 10:00 AM
Wow. I can't imagine such an ad even running here... It would be way beyond what anybody would be comfortable with...

Just how much racism would they "be comfortable with" in Colorado????

Damocles
10-25-2006, 10:06 AM
Just how much racism would they "be comfortable with" in Colorado????
LOL. Probably about the same amount y'all would be comfortable with in Prakoshistan, wherever that is.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-25-2006, 08:05 PM
Wow. I can't imagine such an ad even running here... It would be way beyond what anybody would be comfortable with...

Nobody's comfortable with it here in Mississippi either. No one's comfortable with it pretty much anywhere. It's a distasteful, mudslinging ad, one that says nothing about what the Republican would do for the state... only what you could prevent from happening by voting for him. Whenever you're liked that little that you have to run negative ads, especially stupid ones like this, you're not worthy of higher office.

FUCK THE POLICE
10-25-2006, 08:06 PM
Oh, and one more thing,

Fuck you darla, you bigoted bitch. You're dragging this nation backward with your sexist, racist, regionalist talk and I hate you. The nation as a whole would be better off with your ignorant ass just fell off a cliff somewher.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-25-2006, 08:50 PM
Well I'm sure Dixie could explain for us, and in no more than 5,000 words, why this is not racism, and why it's all the Northern pinhead's fault anyway.


I saw the ad, and it didn't strike me as racist. Especially since it was true, Ford did attend the Playboy Super Bowl party, and was surrounded by beautiful buxom blonds. I heard a clip today, of him admitting he was there, that he liked football and he liked women. He is a single attractive man, why wouldn't he? I don't understand what is overtly racist about the ad, unless a racist mind sees something I don't, it was basically true.

For some reason, northerners seem to think the south is this big conglomeration of racist bigots and home boys, and we manage to avoid racial confrontation because we just keep it down home or something. I can't figure it out, I wish some of you northern people would explain it to me, because I have lived here all my life, and I don't see it.

Is that less than 5,000?

Prakosh
10-25-2006, 11:26 PM
Many people in the South and elsewhere are still as repulsed by the idea of inter-racial marriage and sex, especially, as it has always been, if it is between a black man and a white woman as those who are still repulsed by the idea of homosexual love especially between two males. Don't forget Virginia was the last state to have their inter-racial marriage or miscegination laws overturned by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. This really isn't that long ago. At the same time all of these sexual images are really a continuation of a history that stretches back to slavery, and most certainly has deep roots in the southern white consciousness. That is the dual ideas that go hand-in-hand, and are a result of repressed white guilt and projection. The first idea is that the black woman as the property of the white man is as Karl Rove once said about Valerie Plame, "fair game." The mixed race population of the South is a result of this long held belief. The second idea which emerges from this rape of the black woman is the fear based on guilt and projection that the Black man who has always been seen in white consciousness as more virile than the white man, actively seeks like the white man the rape of the woman of the other race.

The South and the North to some extent, has struggled since the Emancipation Proclamation with the idea that Black people are free. The history of the South since 1865 is a history of that ideological struggle. From the white perspective, the civil rights struggle was as much about social equality as it was about legal freedom and equality. And the biggest struggle in the south and elsewhere in America has always been in the social sphere much more than the legal sphere. One has to look no further than the outrage caused by the Sidney Portier film "Look Whose Coming to Dinner." Or more recently Spike Lee's film "Jungle Fever" to realize these ideas still have cultural currency.

The history of the post-reconstuction era, what Rayford Logan called "the nadir" for the ruthless and extreme violence which characterized this period and which I think most would agree ends with the lynching of 14 year-old Emmitt Till in 1955, the same year that Charlie Parker and Walter White both died, for supposedly whistling at a white woman. This case of the senseless death of a youth from Chicago down south to visit relatives drew national attention and has never been solved. But its importance as both symbol and metaphor should never be discounted. What it represented in all its ignorant and dispicable violence was the southern mindset regarding inter-racial relationships between white women and black men. This mindset is still alive and well in the south, if driven underground, and it is this mindset that is the driving force behind this ad. The sexually promiscous white woman with the come hither smile saying "Harold, call me" is designed to strike the same cord that the white hand crushing the job rejection letter was designed to strike in an earlier ad run a few years ago in another Senate Campaign in the South, I think (and perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong--Dixie?) by Strom Thurmond.

In any event this ad is designed to strike a deep-seated racial cord and shows that the Republican southern strategy is still alive and well, even if dumb fucks like Tucker Carlson and others "just don't get it." Hey, even Bill O'Reilly gets the racial overtones of this ad. I sonder why Dixie our own O'Reilly clone doesn't get it????

Cancel7
10-26-2006, 04:41 AM
Many people in the South and elsewhere are still as repulsed by the idea of inter-racial marriage and sex, especially, as it has always been, if it is between a black man and a white woman as those who are still repulsed by the idea of homosexual love especially between two males. Don't forget Virginia was the last state to have their inter-racial marriage or miscegination laws overturned by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia in 1967. This really isn't that long ago. At the same time all of these sexual images are really a continuation of a history that stretches back to slavery, and most certainly has deep roots in the southern white consciousness. That is the dual ideas that go hand-in-hand, and are a result of repressed white guilt and projection. The first idea is that the black woman as the property of the white man is as Karl Rove once said about Valerie Plame, "fair game." The mixed race population of the South is a result of this long held belief. The second idea which emerges from this rape of the black woman is the fear based on guilt and projection that the Black man who has always been seen in white consciousness as more virile than the white man, actively seeks like the white man the rape of the woman of the other race.

The South and the North to some extent, has struggled since the Emancipation Proclamation with the idea that Black people are free. The history of the South since 1865 is a history of that ideological struggle. From the white perspective, the civil rights struggle was as much about social equality as it was about legal freedom and equality. And the biggest struggle in the south and elsewhere in America has always been in the social sphere much more than the legal sphere. One has to look no further than the outrage caused by the Sidney Portier film "Look Whose Coming to Dinner." Or more recently Spike Lee's film "Jungle Fever" to realize these ideas still have cultural currency.

The history of the post-reconstuction era, what Rayford Logan called "the nadir" for the ruthless and extreme violence which characterized this period and which I think most would agree ends with the lynching of 14 year-old Emmitt Till in 1955, the same year that Charlie Parker and Walter White both died, for supposedly whistling at a white woman. This case of the senseless death of a youth from Chicago down south to visit relatives drew national attention and has never been solved. But its importance as both symbol and metaphor should never be discounted. What it represented in all its ignorant and dispicable violence was the southern mindset regarding inter-racial relationships between white women and black men. This mindset is still alive and well in the south, if driven underground, and it is this mindset that is the driving force behind this ad. The sexually promiscous white woman with the come hither smile saying "Harold, call me" is designed to strike the same cord that the white hand crushing the job rejection letter was designed to strike in an earlier ad run a few years ago in another Senate Campaign in the South, I think (and perhaps someone will correct me if I am wrong--Dixie?) by Strom Thurmond.

In any event this ad is designed to strike a deep-seated racial cord and shows that the Republican southern strategy is still alive and well, even if dumb fucks like Tucker Carlson and others "just don't get it." Hey, even Bill O'Reilly gets the racial overtones of this ad. I sonder why Dixie our own O'Reilly clone doesn't get it????

Well, I didn't think Dixie would get it. I knew he wouldn't think it was racist, for the simple reason that he is a racist. Anyone who can make the claim that just because you don't want to "do business with black people doesn't mean you're a racist' is a racist.

He might not know he's one, but I do.

Great post though. Dixie should have someone read it to him.

maineman
10-26-2006, 06:08 AM
it would be better for DIxie, I think, if it was illustrated with lots of pictures.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 07:23 AM
I knew he wouldn't think it was racist, for the simple reason that he is a racist. Anyone who can make the claim that just because you don't want to "do business with black people doesn't mean you're a racist' is a racist.

I think it wasn't racist, because it wasn't racist. I am not racist, nor did I make the statement you attribute to me. I've explained it already, and I am sorry you missed it, but that statement is not my personal sentiments, rather the opposite of them. I used the absurd example to illustrate that very point, and someone with no integrity or honesty, decided to make it their sig, and misrepresent what was said.

Bigots are people who think they have the right idea, and everyone else is wrong. I fully understand if you want to continue to think I am racist because of a misinterpreted quote or a response you disagree with, because that's how bigots are.

AnyOldIron
10-26-2006, 08:33 AM
For some reason, northerners seem to think the south is this big conglomeration of racist bigots

It might be a wild stab in the dark, but do you think this derives from the American civil war?

maineman
10-26-2006, 08:37 AM
I think that the fact that the people in the south used to OWN black people and well into the 20th century used to lynch black people and prevent them from voting and they made it illegal for whites to marry black people is a good reason why people have the opinion that folks in the south are racist bigots.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 08:39 AM
For some reason, northerners seem to think the south is this big conglomeration of racist bigots

It might be a wild stab in the dark, but do you think this derives from the American civil war?


Also because its sorta the truth, less now than in the past, and not so different from the north... but it is true that there are tuns of racist bigots in the south.

I lived in Alabama for 4 years. I heard plenty of things against black people that I was often shocked were said. I know specifically of many black people being intentionally excluded from events and places. Its amazing what racist bigots will say when they are in the company of someone they wrongfully assume agrees with them.

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 08:48 AM
Also because its sorta the truth, less now than in the past, and not so different from the north... but it is true that there are tuns of racist bigots in the south.

I lived in Alabama for 4 years. I heard plenty of things against black people that I was often shocked were said. I know specifically of many black people being intentionally excluded from events and places. Its amazing what racist bigots will say when they are in the company of someone they wrongfully assume agrees with them.

I spent a couple of years working all over the south. And you are sure right. Rascism is still alive and well in the south, the volume is just turned down.
I caught all kinds of heck from southern white co-workers for going into a "black" convenience store to get a pack of cigarettes. The blacks inside the store even acted as if this was a rare happening, but were nice.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 08:53 AM
How would I have been able to tell?

I walked into a KKK owned store in Virginia... As soon as I saw the sign I gaped in awe then turned, as soon as I got my jaw up off the floor, and left as quickly as I possibly could...

Jarod
10-26-2006, 08:56 AM
I spent a couple of years working all over the south. And you are sure right. Rascism is still alive and well in the south, the volume is just turned down.
I caught all kinds of heck from southern white co-workers for going into a "black" convenience store to get a pack of cigarettes. The blacks inside the store even acted as if this was a rare happening, but were nice.

I was called a ni**er lover because some people found out I voted for President Clinton.

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 09:02 AM
In my area here, the most outspoken bush supporters were also the most prejudiced against blacks. The N word was in common useage among them.
Well those bush supporters do not say much about politics lately, but the N word still flows from their lips along with all the stuff you would expect from a rascist.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 09:17 AM
I once invited a black guy to a party at my fraternity in Alabama, you would have thought I invited Ossama Bin Ladden over for tea.

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 09:31 AM
Yeah I know the feeling alex. It is pretty funny (in a sad kinda way) to watch the reactions though, people trying to be cool and are really afraid or repulsed, but trying to act cool...

Jarod
10-26-2006, 09:34 AM
I love watching hypocracy exposed. When Majic Johnson admited he had AIDS, all those guys who thought only gay people could get it were shocked. That was in Alabama also.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 09:43 AM
For some reason, northerners seem to think the south is this big conglomeration of racist bigots

It might be a wild stab in the dark, but do you think this derives from the American civil war?

I don't know, it doesn't make any sense if it does, the Civil War was 150 years ago, and it didn't have anything to do with racism. I think it has more to do with closed-minded intolerant bigots, who have adopted a stereotype of Southerners, and refuse to let it go.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 09:51 AM
For some reason, northerners seem to think the south is this big conglomeration of racist bigots

It might be a wild stab in the dark, but do you think this derives from the American civil war?

You will notice in my post I included the North in asmuch as bigotry and racism are not solely the purview of a far too many southerners. Certainly there are pockets of white supremecists in North, one of the most dramatic examples was the Aryan Nations Compound in Northern Idaho. It was finally bankrupted after they were sued after some members shot a couple of Native Americans who were driving near the compound. But if you go to the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center, @ www.splcenter.org, you'll see that even though hate crimes are increasing against African-Americans, gays, Latinos, and Arab-Americans in the North there are still people committing many more of these crimes in the South. In addition, the truth is that the most bigoted commercials are still either made by Southerners or are mostly run in the south. The most infamous bigoted commercial made by Republican Party in the last 30 years was that made by Lee Atwater for the Bush I campagin against Michael Dukakis. Alwater, who hailed from South Carolina, was a mentor of Karl Rove. In the commercial a black convict Willie Horton, is shown in shadow moving through a revolving door. Horton, a convicted murderer, subsequently committed a rape while on a furlough from a life sentence in a Massachusetts prison. The commercial was used to show that Dukakis was soft on crime, even though Dukakis, who led Bush by 17 points when the commercial appeared, had nothing to do with Horton's furlough which was mandated by Massachusetts's law. Bush went on to win the election and Atwater spawned a whole generation of Republican dirty tricks operatives including the current king of such tactics, Bush buddy and adviser, Karl Rove.

AnyOldIron
10-26-2006, 09:53 AM
I don't know, it doesn't make any sense if it does, the Civil War was 150 years ago, and it didn't have anything to do with racism. I think it has more to do with closed-minded intolerant bigots, who have adopted a stereotype of Southerners, and refuse to let it go.

The US civil war had nothing to do with racism? Wasn't slavery a prime cause/excuse for it?

The fact that it was 150 years ago doesn't affect people's opinions.

We haven't fought the French since the mid C19th yet we still have the animosity. The Battle of Glen Coe was centuries ago, yet the Scots still go on about it.

Also you have the modern history of institutional racism in the south, with lynchings and the KKK et al.

You're right, it'd be a bigotted person who tarred the whole of the south with the same brush but you can also see why that impression comes about.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 09:53 AM
The Horton ad was shown in CO, I remember it. Of course, at that time I was too young to vote....

Jarod
10-26-2006, 10:05 AM
Many Southern people still harbor resentment toward the north regarding the Civil War.

My grandfather used to tell me stories about how evil and bad the Yankees were. I once brought a girlfriend to meet him, she was from Boston. He called her a damm Yankee.

That resentment has been carried on through generations, its finally starting to fade, but it has taken generations... Even my grandfather tried to instill it in me! He used to tell me how his mother would collect sowards from the battle fiend and use the yankee ones as a fire poker. I still have one my grandfahter left to me.

My grandfather was a kindly racist, by that I mean he was always kind and friendly to black people but he clearly thought of them as less intelegent childlike people. He treated them as he would a child, not an adult and thus was a racist. He would never had harmed a black person, just like he would never harm a child. Those prejudices take generations to erase. My point is that just because the civil war was over 100 years ago, does not mean there are clearly lasting resentments and hatrids lingering. They are fading but not as fast as many might think.

I had a frind from Cincinciti visiting me in Alabama. A girl I knew from Montgomery was over and we were all sitting in a room having a normal conversation. The guy from Ohio left the room for something and she asked me where he was from. When I told her she bristled and said I could tell there was something wrong with him!

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 10:06 AM
It is not just in the south. About 15 years ago while working in Chicago. A customer found out I was a demoncrat and remarked "only blacks are democrats up here."

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 10:06 AM
Alex, people from Boston are Damn Yankees!

maineman
10-26-2006, 10:19 AM
Alex, people from Boston are Damn Yankees!

no...people from the Bronx are damned yankees...people from Boston are red sox fans.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 10:32 AM
The only Damn Yankees I know get paid millions of dollars to smack around a stitched up ball.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 10:35 AM
This girl gets paid plenty to perform in Cirque du Solie and swing back and forth on a trapizee.

Topspin
10-26-2006, 10:35 AM
Main you and Darla perpetuate the Democratic wuss factor that has us getting zero interior states. You falseoutrage turbo-libs will look under a rock to call someone a racist.

Bringing up that ancient shit about the south is kneeslapping funny and low, but not beneth you. Like there's never been any racism in main, please skip the I knew a few once and went to HS with 3 routine for me.

That add was a boon to the dems because far more moderates will be outraged at the trailor park/south park class level of the ad than the already decided limosine liberal searching for something to stir up a frothy falseoutrage over.
thanks you two tools are funny as shit:pke:

maineman
10-26-2006, 10:41 AM
prakosh...to hear Dixie tell it, there was a miracle that happened in the south in 1964. The Civil Rights Act passed and all of a sudden, every white man and woman in the South woke up the next day and all of their racism had been cleansed away. He has yet to explain exactly how that miracle happened, but apparently, according to Dixie...it really did happen just that suddenly!

maineman
10-26-2006, 10:47 AM
Main you and Darla perpetuate the Democratic wuss factor that has us getting zero interior states. You falseoutrage turbo-libs will look under a rock to call someone a racist.

Bringing up that ancient shit about the south is kneeslapping funny and low, but not beneth you. Like there's never been any racism in main, please skip the I knew a few once and went to HS with 3 routine for me.

That add was a boon to the dems because far more moderates will be outraged at the trailor park/south park class level of the ad than the already decided limosine liberal searching for something to stir up a frothy falseoutrage over.
thanks you two tools are funny as shit:pke:

I actually went to high school in the Quad Cities in Illinois. If you care to do the research regarding the demographics there, you will see that my "exposure" to african americans was extensive, so on that point, you are welcome to go fuck yourself.

I am not entirely sure the ad will be a total boon for democrats...I am afraid it might very well energize some of the klan vote that might have otherwise stayed home. And moderates and democrats were already going to turn out over the war issue to begin with.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 10:50 AM
I actually went to high school in the Quad Cities in Illinois. If you care to do the research regarding the demographics there, you will see that my "exposure" to african americans was extensive, so on that point, you are welcome to go fuck yourself.

I am not entirely sure the ad will be a total boon for democrats...I am afraid it might very well energize some of the klan vote that might have otherwise stayed home. And moderates and democrats were already going to turn out over the war issue to begin with.



Those assholes at the GOP knew exactly what they were doing. They got what they wanted out of the ad.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 10:58 AM
The US civil war had nothing to do with racism? Wasn't slavery a prime cause/excuse for it?


Racism, and the issue of slavery in 1864, are two completely different things.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 10:59 AM
The fact that it was 150 years ago doesn't affect people's opinions.

Especially bigots.

maineman
10-26-2006, 11:03 AM
tell us about the miracle, Dixie.....tell us about how, when the Civil Rights Act passed, racism just instantaneously evaporated throughout the south! Tell us, please!

Topspin
10-26-2006, 11:03 AM
I am not entirely sure the ad will be a total boon for democrats...I am afraid it might very well energize some of the klan vote that might have otherwise stayed home. And moderates and democrats were already going to turn out over the war issue to begin with.

spoken like a true falseoutrager, yeah non of the Norther leaders owned slaver or ever attended Klan meetings. LOFL:pke:

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 11:05 AM
Also you have the modern history of institutional racism in the south, with lynchings and the KKK et al.

The term "institutional racism" was used to describe the white infrastructure in the South, circa 1964, when Civil Rights and Voting Rights passed. It has nothing to do with radical hate groups like the KKK, or their actions. In the past 40 years, institutional racism has been wiped out, we no longer have "all-white" anything in the South, and haven't for some time. Again, this stereotype persists among bigoted intolerant people from other areas, who have formed a preconceived notion of the South, and simply refuse to let go.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 11:12 AM
prakosh...to hear Dixie tell it, there was a miracle that happened in the south in 1964.

No, the "miracle" is your story.... tell us about how all the racist segregationist Democrats of that era, magically transformed into Republicans without anyone knowing about it, and no public record of it. Tell us about the magical Democrat "redemption" which allowed people like Robert Byrd to remain a viable part of your party to this day.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 11:24 AM
The US civil war had nothing to do with racism? Wasn't slavery a prime cause/excuse for it?


Racism, and the issue of slavery in 1864, are two completely different things.

Weren't the slaves all black, why was that, just coincidence I guess huh?

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 11:30 AM
The Willie Horton ad was a national ad in the Presidential election and as such was shown all over. And it had an effect all over. I'm not claiming nor did I claim that bigotry is confined to the South. There has been too much Southern white migration to the North and the West for the Southern mindset to have remained in the South while hundreds of thousands of White as well as Black Southerners moved North. In addition Northerners had slaves before the emid 1700s. Read de Crèvecoeur's Letters to an American Farmer (1782). He was a French immigrant, one of the original mythical "yeoman farmers" who lived in the North and owned a slave. Anthropologists have also unearthed evidence of slavery on Long Island in New York. And I do not discount Northern bigotry which has resulted in plenty of Northern lynchings including that of Mormon founder Joseph Smith's brother in Springfield Illinios. The act that precipitated the fledgling Mormon's move to Utah. But what I am saying is that the South has a more recent history of racial animosity and racial unrest than the North and it is no coincidence I think that Emmitt Till and the three civil rights workers, James Chaney, and two white New Yorkers, Andrew Goodman, 20, and Michael Schwerner, 24--were murdered in Mississippi.

And that the Civil Rights movement was centered for the most part in the South. And that for much of the period from 1880 through 1954 and beyond, the South was far more segregated than the North, in fact the state of Louisiana, where Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) originated, had a "one drop" law that designated anyone with "one drop" of black blood was in fact Black for all legal purposes. These are historical facts not some fantasy. Dixie can say whatever he wants but when the trains crossed the Mason-Dixon line heading North Black people could move to white cars. But when they crossed the same line heading South Black people were confined to Black Only cars, which also allowed White people in them, although Black people weren't allowed in White Only cars. Hey, Dixie, Why didn't they allow Black People in White Only cars while allowing white people in Black Only cars?? Or do I have this wrong too, being a brainwashed Northerner and all.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 11:39 AM
prakosh...to hear Dixie tell it, there was a miracle that happened in the south in 1964.

No, the "miracle" is your story.... tell us about how all the racist segregationist Democrats of that era, magically transformed into Republicans without anyone knowing about it, and no public record of it. Tell us about the magical Democrat "redemption" which allowed people like Robert Byrd to remain a viable part of your party to this day.

What do you mean without anyone knowing about it. It was no secret. The Democrats got pissed at Johnson and the Democrats and became Dixiecrats, this splinter group had no power so those so-called Dixiecrats morphed into Republicans. All one has to do is look at the history of people like Strom Thurmond, or that other fat, bald-headed old bastard, Jesse Helms. They were both Democrats, Dixiecrats, then Republicans. And they weren't some kind of anomly...Get real Dixie, I know the truth hurts but you should come in out of de Nile and dry off BOY! You been swimming out in that river far too long, your skin's all shriveled and ashen. Time to begin anew!!!!

Hey Dixie here's some questions: What was the Solid South and what did the term refer to? Why were all Southern candidates nominated and elected at the primary level for so many years? How did that work and why was this practice instituted?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 11:48 AM
this solinter group had no power so those so-called Dixiecrats morphed into Republicans. All one has to do is look at the history of people like Strom Thurmond, or that other fat, bald-headed old bastard, Jesse Helms. They were both Democrats, Dixiecrats, then Republicans.

Well, that's two people, and I've already named Byrd from the Democrats, so it doesn't look like the mass exodus you claim it was. It also doesn't look like any of our racists are still serving. George Wallace had a (D) beside his name until the day he died, and he was re-elected governor of this state 7 times, mostly after he stood in the schoolhouse door.

What happened was this... in 1980, Ronald Reagan cleaned your clocks, mostly with the help of the "Reagan Democrats" who were largely concentrated in the South and rural America. Since that time, Democrats have argued that the old Dixiecrats from the Democrat party, are responsible for the phenomenon, and that is a false assertion. Most of the Dixiecrats are dead now, since they were middle-aged adults during the 1950's and 60's.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 11:53 AM
The civil war was about states rights... but the Big states right issue was SLAVERY.

Saying the Civil war was not about slavery but is about states rights is akin to saying Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, its about the right to privacy.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 11:56 AM
Weren't the slaves all black, why was that, just coincidence I guess huh?

Yeah, the slaves were all black, that still doesn't make the issue of slavery in 1864 the same thing as the issue of racism. I understand you want to draw this parallel, but it is borne of ignorance. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. No one in America, in 1864, believed slaves were equal to white people, not even Abe Lincoln or the slaves themselves. This false perception, that the Civil War was fought over racial equality, is simply without merit. Slavery became an issue because of the economic impact it had on agricultural states of the South, not because all Southerners were racist or all Northerners were non-racist.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 11:57 AM
this solinter group had no power so those so-called Dixiecrats morphed into Republicans. All one has to do is look at the history of people like Strom Thurmond, or that other fat, bald-headed old bastard, Jesse Helms. They were both Democrats, Dixiecrats, then Republicans.

Well, that's two people, and I've already named Byrd from the Democrats, so it doesn't look like the mass exodus you claim it was. It also doesn't look like any of our racists are still serving. George Wallace had a (D) beside his name until the day he died, and he was re-elected governor of this state 7 times, mostly after he stood in the schoolhouse door.

What happened was this... in 1980, Ronald Reagan cleaned your clocks, mostly with the help of the "Reagan Democrats" who were largely concentrated in the South and rural America. Since that time, Democrats have argued that the old Dixiecrats from the Democrat party, are responsible for the phenomenon, and that is a false assertion. Most of the Dixiecrats are dead now, since they were middle-aged adults during the 1950's and 60's.

Jesus Dixie, do you believe that I can name every Democrat who changed into a Republican in the South. Here's another one who isn't dead yet--Trent Lott!

But more mportantly why haven't you answered my questions about the Solid South?

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:01 PM
Yeah, the slaves were all black, that still doesn't make the issue of slavery in 1864 the same thing as the issue of racism. I understand you want to draw this parallel, but it is borne of ignorance. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. No one in America, in 1864, believed slaves were equal to white people, not even Abe Lincoln or the slaves themselves. This false perception, that the Civil War was fought over racial equality, is simply without merit. Slavery became an issue because of the economic impact it had on agricultural states of the South, not because all Southerners were racist or all Northerners were non-racist.

Holy shit are you ignorant, you say "No one in America, in 1864 belived slaves were equal to white people..."

Have you never heard of Frederick Dougless?

Have you never heard of the Abolitionists?

http://www.history.rochester.edu/class/douglass/home.html

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 12:02 PM
Saying the Civil war was not about slavery but is about states rights is akin to saying Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, its about the right to privacy.

I've not said this. Slavery was an issue, and the Civil War became about this issue when Lincoln made it the issue. My point is, the slavery issue in 1864 has nothing to do with racism. You can believe that it's not morally right for one man to own another, and still believe that one race is superior of inferior to another, so the two viewpoints are not synonymous. The issue of slavery was important because the economic backbone of the Southern states, depended on slave labor, not because Southerners believed whites were superior to blacks... that view was held by Northerners as well.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 12:05 PM
Have you never heard of Frederick Dougless?

Have you never heard of the Abolitionists?

Yep. They were opposed to slavery. This doesn't mean that they believed the races were equal. Should I pull the quotes from Lincoln in his debate with Douglass, to illustrate how racist Abe was? Slavery and Racism are two completely different issues. Your problem is, you want to make them the same, and they simply aren't.

maineman
10-26-2006, 12:08 PM
and southern reagan democrats were, for the most part, racists as well. ANd reagan knew that and worked hard for the southern racist vote. I love it how southerners tap dance when confronted with the fact that reagan chose Philadephia, Mississippi as the town to announce his presidential bid..... a town whose ONLY claim to fame was that three civil rights workers had been brutally murdered there, yet the murderer walked the streets a free man (hell, he probably was in the crowd cheering for ronnie) because no jury in Philadelphia, Mississippi would ever convict a white man for murdering a black man and two northern jews who had no right to be there. Of all the towns that reagan could have chosen, he chose Philadelphia, Mississippi - and he made sure to make "state's rights" (a well known southern code phrase for segregation) a part of that speech.

But the republican party in the south is not courting racists...... nah. God damn it, I wish. for once, one of those crackers would just fess up to it.

maineman
10-26-2006, 12:10 PM
Have you never heard of Frederick Dougless?

Have you never heard of the Abolitionists?

Yep. They were opposed to slavery. This doesn't mean that they believed the races were equal. Should I pull the quotes from Lincoln in his debate with Douglass, to illustrate how racist Abe was? Slavery and Racism are two completely different issues. Your problem is, you want to make them the same, and they simply aren't.

now if you could pull quotes from Frederick Douglas where he said that black men were somehow inferior to white men, you might have a point.

I'll wait.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:11 PM
Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas and William Still all lived in 1864 and believed that slaves were equal to white people.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 12:13 PM
Saying the Civil war was not about slavery but is about states rights is akin to saying Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, its about the right to privacy.

I've not said this. Slavery was an issue, and the Civil War became about this issue when Lincoln made it the issue. My point is, the slavery issue in 1864 has nothing to do with racism. You can believe that it's not morally right for one man to own another, and still believe that one race is superior of inferior to another, so the two viewpoints are not synonymous. The issue of slavery was important because the economic backbone of the Southern states, depended on slave labor, not because Southerners believed whites were superior to blacks... that view was held by Northerners as well.

I don't know whether to laugh at your ignorance or cry. You have it backwards here Dixie, as usual. You say, "You can believe that it's not morally right for one man to own another, and still believe that one race is superior of inferior to another, so the two viewpoints are not synonymous." No they are not synonymous. But the ideology of slavery as it was practiced after 1650 or so in the United States was built on the ideology of white supremacy. In fact one can think white people are superior without enslaving black people but one cannot enslave black people without thinking that they are inferior. That is why you have it backwards. They are not synonymous they are logically linked in the sense that one depends on the other to exist as an ideology. You never answered me as to why all the slaves were black, nor did you answer any of the observations I made about the "one drop" laws nor about Plessy v. Ferguson and the segregation of whites and blacks nor have you said anything about the "Solid South" and what it referred to?

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:17 PM
Well John Brown had been hanged by 1864, so you win on that one... but he died for the belife that slaves were equal to white people.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 12:18 PM
Have you never heard of Frederick Dougless?

Have you never heard of the Abolitionists?

Yep. They were opposed to slavery. This doesn't mean that they believed the races were equal. Should I pull the quotes from Lincoln in his debate with Douglass, to illustrate how racist Abe was? Slavery and Racism are two completely different issues. Your problem is, you want to make them the same, and they simply aren't.
Frederick Douglass was Lincoln's advisor and an ex-slave. When did they debate?

Damocles
10-26-2006, 12:20 PM
now if you could pull quotes from Frederick Douglas where he said that black men were somehow inferior to white men, you might have a point.

I'll wait.
Not likely to happen. Frederick Douglass was black, an ex-slave, and an advisor to Lincoln. I want to know when they debated...

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:24 PM
HAHA Dixie thinks Lincon debated Frederick Douglas...


You are so fucking ignorant on this issue it is pittafull!

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 12:25 PM
Frederick Douglass was Lincoln's advisor and an ex-slave. When did they debate?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH A

Dixie doesn't know the difference between the White man from Illinois who Abraham Lincoln actually debated, Stephen A. Douglas, and the escaped slave, abolitionist, author and newspaper man Frederick Douglass. Hey Dixie why don't you go back to high school. I think you need to retake that mandatory American History class again.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:29 PM
Dixie, you ignorant idiot, Abe Lincon may not have belived Slaves were equal to whites... but he was not the ONLY person alive in 1864.

maineman
10-26-2006, 12:30 PM
to come to Dixie's defense (I just flinched, thinking that lightning might stike)....I do not think that his post means that he thought Lincoln debated Frederick Douglass.... I think, from past discussions, that he knows that Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas...and he is correct in suggesting that Abe made statements in those debates that indicated that he felt that blacks were not equal in all respects with whites.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:30 PM
In Dixie's defense, I doubt they teach about Fredereck Dougless in Dixieland elementry schools...

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:34 PM
to come to Dixie's defense (I just flinched, thinking that lightning might stike)....I do not think that his post means that he thought Lincoln debated Frederick Douglass.... I think, from past discussions, that he knows that Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas...and he is correct in suggesting that Abe made statements in those debates that indicated that he felt that blacks were not equal in all respects with whites.

Looking back I agree...


But he fails to acknoledge that CLEARLY Fredereck Dougless was a person, who was alive in 1864, who belived that a slave was equal to a white person. Because of this belife FD fought to remove himself from slavery and became a champion of the Abolitionists a group of people alive in 1864 who believed that slaves were equal to whites and should be treates as such.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:37 PM
Dixie, have you ever heard of Frederick Douglass? Do you really think he beileved slaves were inferior to whites?

Damocles
10-26-2006, 12:39 PM
to come to Dixie's defense (I just flinched, thinking that lightning might stike)....I do not think that his post means that he thought Lincoln debated Frederick Douglass.... I think, from past discussions, that he knows that Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas...and he is correct in suggesting that Abe made statements in those debates that indicated that he felt that blacks were not equal in all respects with whites.
Abe did make remarks like that....

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 12:43 PM
At that time in history very few whites thought Blacks were equal to whites.
Many thought they should not be slaves, but not equal. How long was it till they got to vote ?

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:43 PM
I never said Abe did not make such remarks.

What Dixhead said was "No one in America, in 1864 belived slaves were equal to white people..." !

He forgot about the slaves themselves.. I guess he does not reconise them as full people!

Jarod
10-26-2006, 12:48 PM
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"
- Sojourner Truth

Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.

Cypress
10-26-2006, 12:56 PM
The civil war was about states rights... but the Big states right issue was SLAVERY.

Saying the Civil war was not about slavery but is about states rights is akin to saying Roe v. Wade is not about abortion, its about the right to privacy.


Good lord, I had to listen to my Texan mother-in-law lecture me last night that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery; it had to do with seccession.

I had to bite my tongue, to keep from telling her that the reason the south seceeded was because of the fight over expansion of slavery (or lack, thereof) into new states and territories.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 01:03 PM
I have a post that I wrote ten years ago dealing with Lincoln's racism. He did not believe that Black people were equal. Nor did he believe that they would ever be accepted in American society which is why he belonged to the Colonization Society which believed that the best option For Black pople was to ship them all back to Africa. There were also Black people who believed that Black people whould never be free in America, the latest in a long line being Marcus Gavey whose Black Star Line purchased, refurbished and renamed a ship the Booker T. Washington to take Colonists to what is now the present state of Liberia in the early 1920s. Lincoln rather infamously said, "If I could have won the war without freeing the slaves I would have done it." (or something to that effect). Dixie is wasting his time, virtually the whole country was racist in the nineteenth century, in the sense that nearly every white person North and South believed that White people were superior not only to black people but to everyone who wasn’t white, in fact every country inhabited by white people had universities and other institutions that believed, practiced and taught that ideology which was managed under different names, the white man's burden, manifest destiny, etc. All one has to read to discover this is Edward Said's great ground-breaking work, Orientalism (1978). This is nothing new, but to claim that slavery wasn't founded on white supremacy is to disregard the history of America up until the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter. For a good history of the legalization and transformation of indentured servitude which included both blacks and whites to slavery which quickly became legally exclusively black one needs only read In The Matter of Color (1978) by A. Leon Higgenbothem, Jr., one of America's great legal minds and once widely believed to be heir to the Supreme Court seat now occupied by Clarence Thomas. Had Thurgood Marshall retired under a Democratic president Higgonbothem would occupy that position on the Court today.

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 01:20 PM
Good lord, I had to listen to my Texan mother-in-law lecture me last night that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery; it had to do with seccession.

I had to bite my tongue, to keep from telling her that the reason the south seceeded was because of the fight over expansion of slavery (or lack, thereof) into new states and territories.

the Civil war did not start over slavery, You MIL is mostly right. It did have more to do with states rights and taxation / tarrifs and such economic issues more than slavery initially. Slavery was added in as a tool to get support in the mostly slave free north for the war.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 01:23 PM
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"
- Sojourner Truth

Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.


Dixie does Sojourner Truth count as a person?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 01:41 PM
You have it backwards here Dixie, as usual. You say, "You can believe that it's not morally right for one man to own another, and still believe that one race is superior of inferior to another, so the two viewpoints are not synonymous." No they are not synonymous. But the ideology of slavery as it was practiced after 1650 or so in the United States was built on the ideology of white supremacy.

Which is why I was clear when I said "the issue of slavery in 1864" was not equivalent to "the issue of racism". We are not discussing the overall issue of the concept of slavery, no doubt, that is indeed rooted in racist belief. It's why you automatically assume that racism and slavery are synonymous. Let us be clear about what I am arguing, it's not that slavery itself wasn't racist, it is that the issue of slavery in 1864 America, was not a racial issue, meaning, it wasn't about the racists vs. the non-racist, it was a largely economic issue for the South. This is why it took another century to pass Civil Rights, if the Civil War had been about racial equality, it would have been settled long before 1964.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 01:48 PM
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"
- Sojourner Truth

Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.


Dixie does Sojourner Truth count as a person?


Ignoring me again? I must not have mispelled enough words.

Cypress
10-26-2006, 02:01 PM
the Civil war did not start over slavery, You MIL is mostly right. It did have more to do with states rights and taxation / tarrifs and such economic issues more than slavery initially. Slavery was added in as a tool to get support in the mostly slave free north for the war.

Of course it was a complex issue, and economics played a role.

But, the fundamental issue was whether slavery would be expanded into newly created territories and states. That was what much of the upheavals of the 1850s was about. It was assumed that if slavery was prevented from being expanded into new territories and states, that slavery as an institution would wither since the south would ultimately loose control of the Federal goverment (senate, House, etc).

And, lo and behold, as soon as the South secceede, they wrote their own constition which guaranteed that slavery would be legal in all new states and territories incorporated into the confederacy in the future.

Coincidence that this "right" to slavery was incorporated in the Confederate constitution? I think not.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 02:02 PM
You have it backwards here Dixie, as usual. You say, "You can believe that it's not morally right for one man to own another, and still believe that one race is superior of inferior to another, so the two viewpoints are not synonymous." No they are not synonymous. But the ideology of slavery as it was practiced after 1650 or so in the United States was built on the ideology of white supremacy.

Which is why I was clear when I said "the issue of slavery in 1864" was not equivalent to "the issue of racism". We are not discussing the overall issue of the concept of slavery, no doubt, that is indeed rooted in racist belief. It's why you automatically assume that racism and slavery are synonymous. Let us be clear about what I am arguing, it's not that slavery itself wasn't racist, it is that the issue of slavery in 1864 America, was not a racial issue, meaning, it wasn't about the racists vs. the non-racist, it was a largely economic issue for the South. This is why it took another century to pass Civil Rights, if the Civil War had been about racial equality, it would have been settled long before 1964.

Wow! You answer a post where I say that racism and slavery are "not synonymous," a statement you even quoted, by claiming "you automatically assume that racism and slavery are synonymous." Get a grip Dixie. I thought you were arguing that the Civil war wasn't about "slavery" not that it wasn't about "racial equality." I don't recall anyone arguing that the civil war was about racial equality. Could you show me where someone argued that the civil war was about racial equality, please?

And could you please go back and also answer my questions about the "solid south" while you are at it, please?

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 02:04 PM
That was an issue, but economics is what started it all.
I did extensive research on this at one point in time, and got an A+ on a research paper. Only darned a+ I ever got ;)

Cypress
10-26-2006, 02:06 PM
That was an issue, but economics is what started it all.
I did extensive research on this at one point in time, and got an A+ on a research paper. Only darned a+ I ever got ;)

;)

Well yeah, but "economics" was tied into the slavery issue.

The south had "free" labor, and an enslaved cotton harvesting population, and that cotton had to be traded on the international markets. What capitalist wouldn't want to have "free" labor? It all ties into economics and tarrifs.

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 02:10 PM
Well in that respect yes....
But the issue of freeing the slaves was added in later to gain support for ther north and to incite the slaves in the south to run off or revolt.

Cypress
10-26-2006, 02:12 PM
Well in that respect yes....
But the issue of freeing the slaves was added in later to gain support for ther north and to incite the slaves in the south to run off or revolt.

Oh yes, agreed.

The actual emacipation of southern slaves wasn't an issue until 1863.

I'm just saying that the institution of slavery in principle, and its expansion into the western territories, was the driving factor of the succession.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 02:15 PM
;)

Well yeah, but "economics" was tied into the slavery issue.

The south had "free" labor, and an enslaved cotton harvesting population, and that cotton had to be traded on the international markets. What capitalist wouldn't want to have "free" labor? It all ties into economics and tarrifs.

It's really pretty funny, for years southerners argued that the Black slave work force was so lazy and so worthless that they never did enough work to make their food and keep let alone earn wages. Then after the groundbreaking research of Eric Williams in the early forties published as Capitalism and Slavery (1944) showed the profits that were generated by slavery, the South began claiming that slavery was an economic issue. The certainly wanted it both ways didn't they. I'm glad Dixie is here to remind me of all this history that I had partially forgotten. Thanks Dixie.

Hey do you want to tell me what the term the "Solid South" refers to or means?? And how that solid south primary system worked?? Please!!!!

Cypress
10-26-2006, 02:19 PM
It's really pretty funny, for years southerners argued that the Black slave work force was so lazy and so worthless that they never did enough work to make their food and keep let alone earn wages. Then after the groundbreaking research of Eric Williams in the early forties published as Capitalism and Slavery (1944) showed the profits that were generated by slavery, the South began claiming that slavery was an economic issue. The certainly wanted it both ways didn't they. I'm glad Dixie is here to remind me of all this history that I had partially forgotten. Thanks Dixie.

Hey do you want to tell me what the term the "Solid South" refers to or means?? And how that solid south primary system worked?? Please!!!!

Prak,

Having lived in the South myself, I can tell you that southerners are taught by their parents, grandparent, and schools, a mythological revised version of civil war history.

i.e., it "wasn't about slavery", and it was the North that were the aggressors.

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 02:22 PM
I think the military of the north did act against the south first.

Cypress
10-26-2006, 02:23 PM
I think the military of the north did act against the south first.

Fort Sumpter.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 02:24 PM
Yes, it's the "Northern War of Agression"...

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 02:25 PM
Well it actually was, to prevent the south from succeeding from the Union.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 02:28 PM
Well it actually was, to prevent the south from succeeding from the Union.
Well, if you happen to be seceding, you simply attempt to leave and wait it out. I can see no scenario where you just go and attack the other side unless you are attempting a revolution.

Cypress
10-26-2006, 02:31 PM
Well it actually was, to prevent the south from succeeding from the Union.

Ordering Federal troops to surrender, and firing on Fort Sumter is basically an insurrection and rebelion. Of course the american government is going to be provoked in responding to an insurrection.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 02:33 PM
http://umich.edu/~lawrace/votetour8.htm

Very interesteing comentary on the current situation in the south!

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 02:33 PM
Well umm yes that does sort of go along with succession. And the north had taken no action against the south prior to the souths actions at sumpter ?

Jarod
10-26-2006, 02:37 PM
The South clearly started the agression.

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 02:38 PM
I thought the north nad started blocades and that type of stuff prior to Sumpter, I could be wrong though.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 02:46 PM
Depends on what you call agression.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 02:49 PM
Not likely to happen. Frederick Douglass was black, an ex-slave, and an advisor to Lincoln. I want to know when they debated...

They didn't. I was speaking of Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln's presidential opponent in 1858. In the debates, Linclon himself made it clear, he did not think the 'negro' could ever be considered equal in white society. The issue of slavery did not have a thing to do with the issue of racial equality, they were two completely different issues.

uscitizen
10-26-2006, 02:57 PM
Depends on what you call agression.

Yeah my point Alex.....

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 03:03 PM
Wow! You answer a post where I say that racism and slavery are "not synonymous," a statement you even quoted, by claiming "you automatically assume that racism and slavery are synonymous." Get a grip Dixie. I thought you were arguing that the Civil war wasn't about "slavery" not that it wasn't about "racial equality." I don't recall anyone arguing that the civil war was about racial equality. Could you show me where someone argued that the civil war was about racial equality, please?

And could you please go back and also answer my questions about the "solid south" while you are at it, please?


Scroll back and read the posts. This whole thing started with AOI claiming the Civil War was the catalyst for the racism stereotype of the South, to which I replied, the Civil War wasn't about racism.

Prakosh
10-26-2006, 03:17 PM
Hey Dixie, could you please answer my questions about the "Solid South": What was it and how did the primary system work under that regime?

Easy Question: What do people mean by the "Solid South," Dixie?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 03:35 PM
Hey Dixie, could you please answer my questions about the "Solid South": What was it and how did the primary system work under that regime?

Easy Question: What do people mean by the "Solid South," Dixie?

I don't know, I think it was before my time. Why don't you explain it to us?

maineman
10-26-2006, 03:43 PM
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"
- Sojourner Truth

Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.

this post, more than anything you have EVER written, shows how much you are blind to your own prejudices. I think this quote shows that she felt she was definitely equal to, IF NOT MORE NOBLE than white people. For you to even THINK otherwise is frightening!

Jarod
10-26-2006, 03:55 PM
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"
- Sojourner Truth

Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.


Dixie does Sojourner Truth count as a person?

maineman
10-26-2006, 03:56 PM
I think the military of the north did act against the south first.

excuuuuse me....who first fired on Fort Sumter?????

Jarod
10-26-2006, 03:57 PM
See what I mean, Dixie only ignores me when I have shown him to be an idiot. If its about how badly I spell... he attacks, thats an easy cheap shot. But he cant stay in the ring with me regarding legit issues.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 04:28 PM
They didn't. I was speaking of Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln's presidential opponent in 1858. In the debates, Linclon himself made it clear, he did not think the 'negro' could ever be considered equal in white society. The issue of slavery did not have a thing to do with the issue of racial equality, they were two completely different issues.
Yeah, we reread and figured that was probably what you were talking about, that it was just chance that it happened to be right after a Frederick Douglass mention...

You'll see that as you continue reading.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 04:29 PM
excuuuuse me....who first fired on Fort Sumter?????
He's talking of blockades. If you were starving what would you do?

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 05:07 PM
No one in America, in 1864, believed slaves were equal to white people, not even Abe Lincoln or the slaves themselves.

Earlier in this thread, I made this statement. Since that time, several people have maintained a posting vigil to challenge my remarks, with the position of Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, as well as the Abolitionists.

Upon further consideration, I withdraw the remark in question and stand corrected, there certainly were people in 1864, who thought slaves were equal to whites. Abe Lincoln wasn't one of them, and neither was any Congressman of the time. No General from either side of the war held this view, and the overwhelming majority of people in America, did not believe that tribal Africans were equivalent to white Europeans. It just wasn't the case.

Now, I wish that I could pretend that America was divided between racists and non-racists, and this was what sparked the Civil War, and I wish I could fantasize, that the issue of importance of the time was racial equality, and Southerners didn't believe in it, while Northerners did. I simply can't accept that, because it's not the truth. By today's standard, most everyone of that time would be considered a racist, because most everyone thought of black slaves as inferior to white non-slaves, and it simply didn't matter if it was a Southerner or Northerner, the viewpoint was fairly universal.

The slavery issue was not about racial equality, it was about morality. Those who opposed slavery, and supported abolition of slavery, were not automatically presumed non-racist in their views. Is it possible that some non-racist people supported abolition? Of course, just like it's possible that some racist people supported abolition. The slavery issue of the era, was the (religiously-based) moral question of whether it was right to own humans. Not whether blacks and whites were equal, that took another century to settle.

This is my point. Had the Civil War been about racism and racial equality, 1964 would have marked the centennial celebration of Civil Rights. Slavery was an entirely different debate from equality, and the major argument from the South, was over economic issues, and whether we were a federal union of states who followed a central government, or whether we were a confederation of conjoined states with our own autonomy. This had nothing to do with racism, or the racial equality views of the time, it had everything to do with business, finance, economics, and federal authority over states.

Jarod
10-26-2006, 05:18 PM
I comend you on your admission of your mistake... That takes more than I thought you had.

Now about the rest of your post.

You fail to see that the only reason it would be morally legitatmate to "own" a class of people would be if that Class of people were inferior to you. Now I understand that many, in fact MOST people of the time did not believe black people to be of the same caliber of white people. But there were groups, who fought slavery for that very reason.

The Quakers were one such group! The morality of slavery is helplessly intertwined with the race issue. The only reason Slavery should be legal would be if a group of people were "sub-human" like a dog. The only moral reason to legalize it would be because that in the eyes of the law and our God, all people are created with equality. So while Lincon may not have agreed with the idea, he fought for it!

Again the analogy holds TRUE.

Saying the civil war was not about racial prejudice is like saying Row v. Wade was not about abortion.

The cause of the civil war may not have been the moral issue of slavery, but it turned on that point. The reason behind the R v. W decision may not have been about the right to privacy, it just turned on that point!

Cypress
10-26-2006, 05:52 PM
I thought the north nad started blocades and that type of stuff prior to Sumpter, I could be wrong though.

I don't think so. I think the blockades were started after Fort Sumter.

It was an insurrection and a rebellion. The american government had a right to take action, don't you agree? Whether it be blockades or military action. . And, yet in fact the first shots were fired at American troops stationed in fort sumter.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 06:27 PM
You fail to see that the only reason it would be morally legitatmate to "own" a class of people would be if that Class of people were inferior to you.

Well, Congress passed the laws and said the slaves were property, were they racists?

Now I understand that many, in fact MOST people of the time did not believe black people to be of the same caliber of white people.

The overwhelming and vast majority felt this way. Keep in mind, the science of the time, still held to the belief that Africans simply had not "evolved" to the level of the white man, and this was often cited as the proof of evolution theory. It would take several more decades for research to reveal there was no difference in race, from mental development standpoints, capacity of intelligence, etc. So, the people of the time were going on the information available and the popular consensus of society, as well as the scientific community.

But there were groups, who fought slavery for that very reason.

The Quakers were one such group! The morality of slavery is helplessly intertwined with the race issue.

The morality WAS the issue! This is what I am trying to get you to understand, it wasn't about whether you believed blacks and whites were equal, it was about whether you thought it was right to own humans. They are two completely different debates in 1864.

The only reason Slavery should be legal would be if a group of people were "sub-human" like a dog.

Slavery was legal because our Founding Fathers allowed for it, and made it legal, as well as every Congress up until emancipation. Slaves were not considered sub-human like a dog, more like horses. They were deemed "property" by the legislators of the United States (aka: The Union).

Saying the civil war was not about racial prejudice is like saying Row v. Wade was not about abortion.

It had nothing to do with racial prejudice, if it had, this issue would have been settled by the war, and we would have enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1865! We didn't do this, did we? No, we didn't! The slavery issue did not deal with racial equality issues at all, they are two completely different arguments in 1864. I realize, in today's world, it is easy to think they were the same thing, but that is simply being ignorant of the time period. Virtually no one in America, really and truly felt, that black slaves were equivalent to white people. This was a very radical view for that time, regardless of which side of the Mason-Dixon you were on. Lincoln once suggested, upon abolition, we could ship all of the slaves back to Africa. He didn't advocate or support the idea of a homogeneous society, where blacks and whites were treated as equals.

The cause of the civil war may not have been the moral issue of slavery, but it turned on that point. The reason behind the R v. W decision may not have been about the right to privacy, it just turned on that point!

I don't get the analogy to Roe, this is entirely different. We fought the most bloody war of our history, and most Americans are clueless about it. The overwhelming issue of the Civil War became about abolition of slavery, frankly, out of political desperation on the part of Lincoln. As much as you ride on Bush, imagine if Bush had caused a Civil War? People were pissed at Lincoln, and as the body counts soared, the got even more pissed at him. This all had started because he was indifferent to the unfair advantages given to Northern industries and labor, while burdening Southern agriculture with tariffs and restrictions.

To give you an idea of where slavery played a role from the South's perspective, I can compare it with those who feel we don't need to deport illegal aliens, because they are doing the jobs no American wants to do. This was the situation in the South, in the lead-up to the Civil War. Their entire agricultural economics, depended on slave labor to produce their product, this had been legal for years, the US government was okay with it, there had been no attempt to change it, until the Abolitionist movement. Suddenly, you had the federal government signaling they may abolish your means of production, and... tough cookies, you are on your own.

Now, think about that for a moment. Is it fair for government to tell the producers of cotton, we are going to ban your method of producing your product, we don't have a solution for you, it's up to you to find a way to survive without this vital element of your operation? This was the issue for the South. There was an old Rebel battle cry, "fight or die" and that was literally what was at stake for the South, their entire economic base was at stake.

Another important thing to remember here, at this point in time, we had already outlawed any slave imports from foreign countries, the only slave trade in America, was internal. Society was changing from the inhumane mindset of the 1600's, and total abolition was inevitable at some point. There were many Southern Abolitionists, and it was a moral issue entirely. Many Southern plantations had already granted freedom to their slaves, and many of those same free slaves, went and fought for the Confederacy.

In summary, it wasn't so much about Slavery, as a racial issue, as it was a moral and economic issue. Racism is believing one race superior or inferior to another, and unfortunately, most of American society in 1864, was racist in their views.

To take the history from 1864, and view it through the prism of 2006, and apply the 1964 "effect" filters... is a little disingenuous. Slavery, as it pertains to the Civil War, has nothing to do with Racism, or racial equality.

maineman
10-26-2006, 06:33 PM
He's talking of blockades. If you were starving what would you do?

well...considering that the blockade of the south was ordered by Lincoln on April 19th and the confederacy fired on Fort Sumter on April 12th, I guess what you would want me to say in answer to your question is ...travel back in time and attack Fort Sumter in RESPONSE to starving from the effects of the blockade a full week before the blockade was in place??????

Damocles
10-26-2006, 06:40 PM
well...considering that the blockade of the south was ordered by Lincoln on April 19th and the confederacy fired on Fort Sumter on April 12th, I guess what you would want me to say in answer to your question is ...travel back in time and attack Fort Sumter in RESPONSE to starving from the effects of the blockade a full week before the blockade was in place??????
Nope. But that is what I believe he was speaking of...

Many people don't know when and how the war started. Honestly it began when the South decided to become the Confederate States and selected a President.

maineman
10-26-2006, 06:49 PM
Nope. But that is what I believe he was speaking of...

Many people don't know when and how the war started. Honestly it began when the South decided to become the Confederate States and selected a President.

"most people" aren't as well read and intelligent as you or me...so I was curious why you asked such a dumbass question about starving to death to begin with!

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 07:33 PM
"most people" aren't as well read and intelligent as you or me...

Congratulations, you are half right!

...and I belive that should be, 'you or I' ...Mr. Intelligent.

maineman
10-26-2006, 08:34 PM
"You aren't as smart as me."

NOT..."you aren't as smart as I."

see?

"as" and "like"...used in similes....

"YOU aren't as well read as me".... not "you aren't as well read as I"

or the book title
"Black like ME"....not "Black like I"

do you - a barely literate slanderous redneck racist pig from birmingham alabama, really want to get into an english grammar discussion with me?

you should stick with your false accusations of my pedophilia.... they are just as wrong, but much less simple to defend against. Grammar is pretty cut and dried, so to speak.

Damocles
10-26-2006, 08:36 PM
"most people" aren't as well read and intelligent as you or me...so I was curious why you asked such a dumbass question about starving to death to begin with!
Sometimes you just poke to see if there is a bruise...

:D

maineman
10-26-2006, 08:40 PM
damo, my friend, I think if you look back on our association, you will agree that I rarely stick my nose into discussions about which I feel at all disadvantaged. That means, that I don't participate in a breadth of topics....but things military and things historical having to do with the military are areas that I do not shy away from. If you consider for a moment my education and my background, the reason for that will become clear. ;)

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-26-2006, 11:48 PM
"You aren't as smart as me."

NOT..."you aren't as smart as I."

see?

"as" and "like"...used in similes....

"YOU aren't as well read as me".... not "you aren't as well read as I"

or the book title
"Black like ME"....not "Black like I"

do you - a barely literate slanderous redneck racist pig from birmingham alabama, really want to get into an english grammar discussion with me?

you should stick with your false accusations of my pedophilia.... they are just as wrong, but much less simple to defend against. Grammar is pretty cut and dried, so to speak.

"most people" aren't as well read and intelligent as you or me

The Columbia Guide to Standard American English says the following: "As" is both a subordinating conjunction, and a preposition. As a subject of the clause introduced by the conjunction "as", the pronoun must be nominative, and as object of the preposition "as", the following pronoun must be in the objective case. Since the following verb "am" is often dropped or 'understoood,' "as intelligent as you or me am" ..."as intelligent as you or I am"

Plus it's in the AP Stylebook, 'you' is almost always followed by 'I', not 'me'.

maineman
10-27-2006, 05:47 AM
so....you admit that as "intelligent as you or me" is just as correct as the alternative?

That's what I thought.

One wonders why you made such a fuss.

Jarod
10-27-2006, 08:09 AM
The abolition of slavery was the first step toward a 100+ year journey toward racial equality for the African-Americans. The first civil right granted to blacks was the absolute right to own oneself, to make ones own decisions about ones own life.

I am sorry you cant get this simple analogy... but while the issue of R. v. W. was Abortion, much like the issue of the civil war was about slavery... the deeper issue in R v. W. is about when a person gets to make her own medical decisions and when the government has a right to step in, much like the deeper issue in the civil war was about states getting to determine there own rules and laws.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-27-2006, 11:51 AM
The abolition of slavery was the first step toward a 100+ year journey toward racial equality for the African-Americans.

I agree, but you can't view history and the collective views of America in 1864, from the perspective of the African-Americans alone. You are following a time-line, and attempting to attribute today's reality, with yesterdays sentiments, and it doesn't work that way. Abolition was not considered to be the "first step" to equality, by anyone other than, maybe African-Americans... I'm not so sure they even considered it a first step to equality at that time. In 1864, the notion that blacks and whites were equal, was practically non-existent. I am sorry to say that, but it's the truth of the matter, and it was this way across America, not just in the South.

In fact, some of the bloodiest and deadliest racial lynchings and such, occurred across Wisconsin and Illinois in the early 1900's. Racism and slavery are two completely different issues, and to pretend that the Civil War is justification for the prejudiced stereotype of the South as racist, is just patently unfair.

Prakosh
10-27-2006, 12:05 PM
"most people" aren't as well read and intelligent as you or me...

Congratulations, you are half right!

...and I belive that should be, 'you or I' ...Mr. Intelligent.

Since you are so damn smart Dixie, why can't you answer my question and tell me what the term the "solid South" referred to?

It's simple and should be a no-brainer for someone whose head is as big as yours. What does the term "solid South" mean? And when did the term stop being used to refer to the South and why????

Damocles
10-27-2006, 12:09 PM
Since you are so damn smart Dixie, why can't you answer my question and tell me what the term the "solid South" referred to?

It's simple and should be a no-brainer for someone whose head is as big as yours. What does the term "solid South" mean? And when did the term stop being used to refer to the South and why????
Is this trivia question open to all comers or must it be only Dixie who answers?

Jarod
10-27-2006, 12:15 PM
The abolition of slavery was the first step toward a 100+ year journey toward racial equality for the African-Americans.

I agree, but you can't view history and the collective views of America in 1864, from the perspective of the African-Americans alone. You are following a time-line, and attempting to attribute today's reality, with yesterdays sentiments, and it doesn't work that way. Abolition was not considered to be the "first step" to equality, by anyone other than, maybe African-Americans... I'm not so sure they even considered it a first step to equality at that time. In 1864, the notion that blacks and whites were equal, was practically non-existent. I am sorry to say that, but it's the truth of the matter, and it was this way across America, not just in the South.

In fact, some of the bloodiest and deadliest racial lynchings and such, occurred across Wisconsin and Illinois in the early 1900's. Racism and slavery are two completely different issues, and to pretend that the Civil War is justification for the prejudiced stereotype of the South as racist, is just patently unfair.


The Quakers and the Abolitionists would likely disagree with you...

Prakosh
10-27-2006, 12:24 PM
I don't know, I think it was before my time. Why don't you explain it to us?

So was, I think, the civil war yet you can go on for days about that. So why don't you answer the question and stop playing coy it really doesn't become someone who is as smart as you claim to be every few days. You seem to pretend to know all about the South while those of us from the North, according to your world view, know absolutely nothing about the South, so you should be the one to answer the questions. So here they are again. What did the term the "solid South" refer to? And how did the primary system work during the period before the 1968 voting rights law was signed by President Lynden Johnson?? What was the "solid South" and why did people call it that??? In other words what purpose did the primary system serve in the South during this period. Hard to believe that someone who knows so much about happenings nearly 150 years ago knows so little about what happened less than 40 years ago!!!! I guess you aren't nearly as smart as you say you are if you don't know what the term the "solid South" refers to. Maybe you should ask some of your tobacco spittin' friends; maybe one of them knows.

Prakosh
10-27-2006, 12:28 PM
Is this trivia question open to all comers or must it be only Dixie who answers?

No it is not, since Dixie denied that the South was once except for Black voters almost completely Democatic and morphed into a red state Republican South in recent years and demanded that I name all the Democrats who changed party, as if this didn't happen, he should be the one to answer the question.

Jarod
10-27-2006, 12:33 PM
I posted a link that would give Dixie the answer...

Prakosh
10-27-2006, 01:00 PM
I posted a link that would give Dixie the answer...

He doesn't want the answer because it will show him to be a liar. And that is the main reason why I want him to answer this question. For someone who is as smart as he keeps telling us he is, this should be a no-brainer. Either that or he isn't as smart as he says he is. In either case, it appears that he has backed himself into a corner.

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-27-2006, 02:14 PM
No it is not, since Dixie denied that the South was once except for Black voters almost completely Democatic and morphed into a red state Republican South in recent years and demanded that I name all the Democrats who changed party, as if this didn't happen, he should be the one to answer the question.


I never denied anything. It appears you are the one backing me in a corner. I will again say, if you have evidence that there was a mass exodus of democrats to the republican party following Civil Rights, to please give us some proof of that. I only know about George Wallace's amazing transformation from racist segregationist to beloved governor, and he was a democrat until the day he died.

I think, if you are going to try and make the argument that the "morphing" of the South has to do with racial discrimination or racist views, you should at least be required to present some evidence of this. It's a serious charge to make, without any justifiable reason. As I see it, the South has "morphed" over to the Republican party because of conservativism and morality issues, we do have that Bible Belt thing... So, your argument is without merit or basis, unless you can make a case.

I don't know much about the "Solid South" ...as I said, it was before my time. Besides, I don't profess to know everything about the history of Democrat politics.

Cypress
10-27-2006, 02:22 PM
I never denied anything. It appears you are the one backing me in a corner. I will again say, if you have evidence that there was a mass exodus of democrats to the republican party following Civil Rights, to please give us some proof of that. I only know about George Wallace's amazing transformation from racist segregationist to beloved governor, and he was a democrat until the day he died.

I think, if you are going to try and make the argument that the "morphing" of the South has to do with racial discrimination or racist views, you should at least be required to present some evidence of this. It's a serious charge to make, without any justifiable reason. As I see it, the South has "morphed" over to the Republican party because of conservativism and morality issues, we do have that Bible Belt thing... So, your argument is without merit or basis, unless you can make a case.

I don't know much about the "Solid South" ...as I said, it was before my time. Besides, I don't profess to know everything about the history of Democrat politics.


Dixie: "I will again say, if you have evidence that there was a mass exodus of democrats to the republican party following Civil Rights, to please give us some proof of that."

Here you go; this is common knowledge:


In the 1960s, the courting of white Southern Democratic voters was the basis of the "southern strategy" of the Republican Party's Presidential Campaigns. Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater carried the Deep South in 1964, despite losing in a landslide in the rest of the nation to President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas. Johnson surmised that his advocacy behind passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would lose the South for the Democratic party and it did. When the Democrats pushed for civil rights, the Republicans reaped the political benefits of a Southern white backlash. The only Democratic presidential candidate after 1956 to solidly carry the Deep South was President Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.

Senator Strom Thurmond switched parties and became a Republican as a result of his support for the Barry Goldwater campaign in 1964. Former Democrat Jesse Helms also switched his party registration to Republican in 1970 and won a Senate seat in North Carolina in 1972. Phil Gramm of Texas, at the time a member of the House of Representatives, switched his party registration from Democrat to Republican in 1983. Several other Southern senators, such as Richard Russell, Jr. of Georgia and James Eastland and John Stennis of Mississippi remained in the Democratic Party and went on to become prominent senators who served multiple terms in the service of their respective states. These long careers in the Senate elevated their seniority and put them in positions of power and prestige.

Into the twenty-first century, the South has changed from a Democratic monolith to a majority Republican sector of the country with GOP gains in state legislatures. This change, which became quite evident in 1972 with the electoral success of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", peaked with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and was consolidated in 1994 when Republicans gained a majority in the House of Representatives under the leadership of Newt Gingrich.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-27-2006, 02:33 PM
When the Democrats pushed for civil rights, the Republicans reaped the political benefits of a Southern white backlash.

And what does this have to do with Republicans being racists? It seems to me, Democrats bolted from the racist Democrat party to join the less-racist Republican party.

Jarod
10-27-2006, 03:14 PM
I never denied anything. It appears you are the one backing me in a corner. I will again say, if you have evidence that there was a mass exodus of democrats to the republican party following Civil Rights, to please give us some proof of that. I only know about George Wallace's amazing transformation from racist segregationist to beloved governor, and he was a democrat until the day he died.

I think, if you are going to try and make the argument that the "morphing" of the South has to do with racial discrimination or racist views, you should at least be required to present some evidence of this. It's a serious charge to make, without any justifiable reason. As I see it, the South has "morphed" over to the Republican party because of conservativism and morality issues, we do have that Bible Belt thing... So, your argument is without merit or basis, unless you can make a case.

I don't know much about the "Solid South" ...as I said, it was before my time. Besides, I don't profess to know everything about the history of Democrat politics.


Your proof...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://umich.edu/~lawrace/votetour8.htm

Dixie - In Memoriam
10-27-2006, 04:48 PM
All I see there is speculation and some pretty maps. I need to see tangible evidence that the Republican party advocated for the 'racist cause' or something. It simply doesn't comport with common sense, to assume the Dixiecrats were angered by Johnson's passing the CRA, and bolted to the party the blacks had supported, who were also instrumental in passing the CRA.

As I said earlier, the only Dixiecrat I know first-hand about, is George Wallace. He ran for president against Nixon in '68 and '72, on the independent third party ticket. After he lost, and was almost assassinated, he returned to being the Democrat governor of Alabama, and was re-elected by landslides for several more terms. He routinely garnered 65-70% of the black vote in the 1970's and 80's.

You can spin things however you wish, but to suggest something as lame as this, is pretty pathetic. The Democrats were sharply divided on segregation, the Republicans had no qualms with CRA, and helped Johnson pass it... then the Dixiecrats got mad and joined the people who were the most fundamental in passing CRA? It doesn't make sense. Why would people abandon their own party, to join the opposite party... who didn't agree with them either?

We know about Wallace, and we know Byrd is still serving in Congress as a Democrat... Lester Maddox was a Democrat until the day he died... It seems to me, the main Dixiecrats stayed Democrat, they just managed to receive some magical redemption from their past views, and carry on in their political careers. Now, here we are 40 years later, and you want to re-write history. Tsk, tsk.

Prakosh
10-28-2006, 12:00 AM
Poor Dixie, all those words and all those posts and he still hasn't said what the term "solid South" refers to. He also claims to know all about Maddox, Wallace and others of the period but can't seem to remember how the primaries were run during this period or why because "it was before [his] time." So Dixie, tell us what is meant by the term "solid South" and why the primary system was always used until recently to pick political candidates so taht they didn't have to be voted on in the general election. It is really starting to appear as if you are not as smart as you claim to be.

Why can't you just explain these simple concepts for the people on the board Dixie? Why all this dancing around this issue? Can't you find another tobacco spitter down there to tell you what happened? Instead of posting post after post after post saying nothing and avoiding the qiuestion like the plague why don't you just answer the questions. You are really starting to look dumb on this one mr. smarty pants. Just answer the question. What is meant by the term "solid South"? And how did the primary system in the "solid South" work and why did it work that way?

Since the rest of us are too stupid to know anything about the way things worked in the South you are the only one here really qualified to answer that question. You have already said repeatedly that we are all "pinheads" and that we just can't know anything about the South, bein' from the North and all, but I still can't get you to answer this simple questions. Why won't you answer these questions, Dixie?

Jarod
01-19-2010, 10:11 AM
Yeah, the slaves were all black, that still doesn't make the issue of slavery in 1864 the same thing as the issue of racism. I understand you want to draw this parallel, but it is borne of ignorance. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. No one in America, in 1864, believed slaves were equal to white people, not even Abe Lincoln or the slaves themselves. This false perception, that the Civil War was fought over racial equality, is simply without merit. Slavery became an issue because of the economic impact it had on agricultural states of the South, not because all Southerners were racist or all Northerners were non-racist.

Dixie is back again with this same argument... It was shot down back then and I am bumping it for your review...!

Topspin
01-19-2010, 10:33 AM
Is it recent news that Dixie is a racist moron?