The party comprised of Democrats is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.
What would have been a good compromise on the Civil War?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
The party comprised of Democrats is the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
A good compromise would have been for Lincoln to blow his own brains out instead of waiting for Booth to do it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Then they would call themselves democratics. They don’t. So it is democrat party
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You're an idiot. "Democratic Party". "Democrats". There are names for things, and idiot is a name for you.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
I realize that you, as a Democrat, wish to impose your will on others, however I choose to use language in the manner that I deem most appropriate. I prefer the term "Democrat Party", for consistency of language and accuracy of intent:
- Republicans are members of the Republican Party, therefore Democrats are members of the Democrat Party. There is no such thing as "Democratics", nor "Republicanics".
- There is nothing "democratic" about the Democrat Party; either the way it runs itself, or the way it wishes to rule the country.
Slavery was not the impetus for the civil war you ignorant fuck, General Kelly's comments had nothing to do with slavery.
Yes, I do. Why the fuck does that matter? The Democrats used to be Southern racist conservatives. Republicans were the party of New York liberals. Times change, and Lincoln would be vomiting in his grave at what has become of the Republican party.
So what is your compromise, since you are clearly concerned about addressing the thread title?
Ask the Racist Democrat party. That you prob support.
They were the racists back then, look what states supported them back then... now look who supports the Democrats... not the same people.
For national politics it switched in the 1960's when Nixon pursued the racist "Southern strategy" learn some history.
It such an easy thing to prove. Just look at which party Southern conservatives now support, and have supported for decades.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
It matters because the Democrat Party hasn't changed as you want to believe. It was and still is anti-Constitution. The "3/5 rule" was not the only compromise made when the Constitution was written. You may want to dust off your copy and read Article I Section 9, first clause. That sets a date of 1908 where Congress can start to prohibit "Migration or Importation". If this prohibition had been done in 1908 then the slavery issue would have gone away by the time of the Civil War.
Unfortunately, Democrats fought such acts, and The Republican Party didn't gain power until much later.
MAGA MAN
Let's go Brandon!
You're still eating off that pile of shit. Why can't you learn actual history?
Die slow and screaming nigger.
Same Party
You have disqualified your opinion if you think that the Democrats are still a Southern conservative party. The rest of your post is simply a red herring designed to distract from this very glaring fact.
The Southern Strategy has never stopped. Lee Atwater, originally under the promise of anonymity, outright stated that Republicans became more abstract about racism post-1960s because it was political suicide to call blacks n*ggers. The strategy went into super-mega-overdrive under Trump.
Last edited:
Same name, different supporters and different ideology.
Getin the ring
Verified User
important to realize that the thought process was entirely different than it is today in regards to slavery
The northern industrialization was being funded almost exclusively by the southern cash crop, cotton.
None of the factories or railroads being built were to benefit or connect the south to anything.
Carpetbaggers was a dirty word. Akin to big corporation or Wall streeters today.
To free the slaves would mean paying the slaves, or someone, to pick the cotton.
To compensate for this the southern plantation owners wanted to be paid more for their cotton.
the slaves became that bargaining.
I think what General Kelly was referring to was compromise on both sides to that end.
From a human standpoint it is certainly easy to vilify the slave owners, and rightfully so.
But as I opened this post with, the mind set was already in place that slaves were property.
The northern industrialization was being funded almost exclusively by the southern cash crop, cotton.
None of the factories or railroads being built were to benefit or connect the south to anything.
Carpetbaggers was a dirty word. Akin to big corporation or Wall streeters today.
To free the slaves would mean paying the slaves, or someone, to pick the cotton.
To compensate for this the southern plantation owners wanted to be paid more for their cotton.
the slaves became that bargaining.
I think what General Kelly was referring to was compromise on both sides to that end.
From a human standpoint it is certainly easy to vilify the slave owners, and rightfully so.
But as I opened this post with, the mind set was already in place that slaves were property.
I realize that you, as a Republican are deranged about Democrats and therefore tell lies.
The Democratic Party has a name, and you are willingly illiterate by refusing to use it - even worse than the people who correct the right's party to the Republicons. The Democrats are a lot more democratic than the Republican plutocrats are republican.
That's one of the more reasonable posts I've seen from the right on the topic. But the thought process wasn't 'entirely different', there were abolitionist organizations recognizing how wrong slavery was since the country's founding.