Lincoln and Slavery, Myths and Legends... Free at Last? Not so Fast!

and if we had che, homosexuals would be in prison

Yes Yes sure , but we are talking about your incompitance here congo not che's. BTW when are you going to stick to my coments and not my Icon? It just shows how little you realy have of value to say on any subject.

o.k. i take that back. so am i incorrect in assuming that your icon somehow in any way represents you?

" incompitance " stupid is as stupid does.

what was that Forest? you were babbling again...

dude, youll eventually realize much of what they taught you in school was bullshit. the dems have been trying to revision and rewrite history for years. do some real research

My civil war class was taught by a civil war obsessed republican who wrote the textbook, but I didn’t go to normal school, i went to school for advanced children, lot of good it did me. Anyways my point is we cannot go around trying to rewrite history, the only way I will consider a different take on an established historical event is if the author has either a doctorate from an established and well respected institution, or if he/she has primary sources to back him up, really I want both. I see no primary sources listed, and nothing relating to degrees of any kind stating that the author or designer of the above statement is in the position to make any kind of authoritative statement, get the primary sources, build the case then come talk to me, till then I will stick with the Emancipation Proclamation was designed to boost the morale and cause of the north while crippling the economy of the south. Lincoln wanted slaves of the south to escape and come to the north to essentially wipe out the southern economy, agriculture, and war manufacturing the whole thing. That is why it was paired with Sherman’s march to the sea.

escape to the north where they could join the still enslaved.

Slavery was illegal in many northern states at this point, also provisions were made to absorb any all slaves they could into the Union army.

Yup

ive noticd that has been happening over the last few months, more and more.
this reoccuring story of how the left was to blame for the racial disharmony in our contemperary history, not the right.
i wondered from where it was coming, but with congo jumping on board its clearly a republican effort.
i guess they really just dont want black or young votes

every state has free elections.
those elections resulted in overwhelming support for republicans in the south.
the south held a culture that tolerated and proliferated the kkk.
that is the history.
it wasnt new england racism that the civil rights act was overcoming.it wasnt the west cost klan killing blacks and jews.
it was the republican/conservative/bible belt/ south who were source of the kkk.
no grey area, despite revisionist attempts.
the holocaust happened no matter how many people want to say otherwise, and the right is the party of racism.

Im telling you its a political move, once a party moves on history though it will not be long until they make a play for absolute power.

will? have ya seen fox?
it is our era that will in the near future be seen as the ones who stood in the way of the progress the right was rightiously attempting.in the long term history will see us as the era that allowed tyrany to usurp freedom allowing the united states to become a police state serving an aristocracy.

you got guns, as do i.i dont have kids, and your gay.we are good.fuck em all, if they want to vote against thier interest,oppressive third world status is what thier decendants deserve.

plenty of history and blame to go around...

My little brother has been saying that he couldn’t understand why blacks would vote for a Democrat when the Democrats started the KKK and Republicans freed the slaves. It sounds crazy but my little brother is right, but ONLY if you go far enough back. Around the civil war times democrats tended to be southerners and they were, in general, opposed to giving freedom and rights to black people. Actually, when Lincoln was President the Republicans were progressive, more like Democrats today, and Democrats in the 1860s were more like Republicans today.

If Lincoln were alive today most Republicans wouldn't vote for him because he felt the federal government had a right to rule over all the states and individual states had to comply with the laws of the federal government, even when they didn't like them.

During the Depression the Democrats were the party that seemed to care more for poor people and minorities. The New Deal gave the same help to whites and blacks and these upset southern democrats. I remember my grandfather telling me that during the depression he had to dig ditches " right next to a niggers, and we both got paid the same amount. " He was outraged for two reasons: one, he had to be a coworker to blacks (because of that damn FDR) and two, his pay was and the black guy’s pay were the same. My grandfather was a racist, and the indignity of equality with blacks was blamed on Franklin Roosevelt. My grandfather was a Republican. During the Depression Republicans were the party that opposed giving help to the poor and thought cutting taxes would save the country. http://kerplop.com/Post507514-Democrats-Created-The-Kkk.htm The Klu Klux Klan was founded as a Democrat proxy group. Many black Americans served in the US Goverment in the 1800′s and beyond as part of the “Radical Republican” party. In 1912 the ‘Progressive’ Democrat, President Woodrow Wilson instituted racial segregation into the Federal Government. Many blacks were subsequently pushed out of the Federal Government. More on Woodrow Wilson: Thomas Woodrow Wilson (December 28, 1856February 3, 1924) was the 28th President of the United States and a devout Democrat. Wilson was a Presbyterian and ‘intellectual elite’ of ‘Progressive’ idea and policies, he served as President of Princeton University from 1902 to 1910, where he denied entrance to black Americans. Wilson was elected President as a Democrat in 1912. Early in his first term, he instituted racial segregation in the federal government. Wilson worked with a Democratic Majority Congress to pass major ‘progressive’ legislation that included the Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act, America’s first-ever federal ‘progressive’ income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913 and most notably the Federal Reserve Act. It was the Federal Reserve Act that privatized much of The Federal Reserve and some say took oversight of the monetary system of The United States away from the people. The new Democrats represent Institutionalized Racism. The strategies of Saul Alinksy and Cloward-Priven enacted through pawns like Willie Lynch have degraded and demoralized the black community.http://www.mikeadkins.com/article/kkk-democrats-lynching-killing-black-white-rad...

at the end of the day yes it is important to remember history, and yes the democrats have a shamefull history with racism.but 1800's political association with current party politics only serves to blur lines and cloud issues.

above all else, let the black community decide how to tell the tale.let those subject to the injustices tell of them, not those who comitted them.just as we wouldnt accept german revisionism of the holocaust, we must yield to tha african american community in regards to what happened.

the thing that makes our use of freedom of speech great, is that unlike the rest of history we can have the victims tell the tale.no longer does only the victor right history, but those who were subject to the victor get to tell thier tale.

as it is, tomorrow the republicans can become anti gun, and the left can become pro life, but making those issues party based only serves to point fingers of blame, and ignore the greater issues at hand.democrats used to carry water for racists, and in contemperary times republicans do.it may switch again, but the point is to kno wit when you see it to stop it, not label a party exclusively with it, as that would be an effort born of the same error that racism is.

dont think one has to be of a particular demographic, persuasion or ethnicity to point out and write about history or issues of the day. plenty of non jews have written about the holocaust. and there are plenty of apologists, revisionists and historical rewrites happening on the left. if someone is omitting a bit of history or is just plain ignorant, parroting what their buddies say instead of looking at the reality of current or past atrocities it is up to the wizened to show them the errors of their ways. after all if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it.

its just a difference in philosophies then.i just believe people who identify themselves as a certain thing have a natural gravitation towards issues that pertain to that thing, what ever it may be.
a democrat will be able to tell you from first hand experience more accurate info about the party than say a conservative or republican, and vice versa.
the majority of goyum who speak of the holocaust tend to be worng on many major points, as well as most white people tend to have the kiddie version of our racist history.

i just think we should yield ultimate authority to those who live it.facts are facts, but a whole lot of human inflection exist around them, that unless you are vested in the subject matter most wont see.

ie-you know antisemitism when you see it, while others do not."hey im just saying this jew is cheap is all, not being antisemitic" while the entire narrative supposes "that jew" represents the whole of judaism.to the casual observer it is an idle statement, but to the vested we know what is being attempted.when it comes to how we as a culture exercise racism towards black people, we have to yield to them, otherwise local news would still only show black faces when talking about crime.

yeah but its difficult when the left paints the right out to be racist bigots, sure we got some but its not our party platform as many on the left like to chime. and the same on the left, they got their fair share of racist bigots too and some on the right like to portray all lefty's as thinkin the same. will we ever know which party is more evil than the other? probably not. but somethings for sure there are some fundamental differences at reaching the same goals. whose are better? depends on your point if view.

the thing is though, is it doesnt matter how many members of either party are racist.every single member of the democratic party can be racist as long as it isnt reflected in thier political actions.
the right keeps getting nailed with the charge of racism, the same you way islam keeps getting nailed with terrorism.
the right needs to police its own backyard, and does not.

if the right were legitimately concerned with proving they are not racist, wouldnt they seperate themselves from the tea party, as opposed to trying fuel them and bring them into the fold?
politics was,is,and always will be played out in the theater of public opinion.this is an undeniable fact.so if a group organizes against the first ever black president without cause, wouldnt an entity such as the republican party avoid them like the plague, if they dont want to be seen as racist?
the infinate racist messages espoused by the tea party, from the overt "n" word usage to the more subtle african spearchucker images are something a nonracist organization would see as a sign that these are people who we dont want in our camp.yet the republicans courted them, and still do.

put that in combination with the states who were proudly racist not too long ago all being staunchly republican, it follows a steady narrative.wether the left espouses it or not, the right is being judged on its actions, wich used to endorse and now tolerate racism.had mississipi,alabama,georgia, and so on not been soooo racist and soooo republican the branding wouldnt fit.but they were.so much so that the government had to intervene in order to force them to intergrate, and drive out a competing social order in the klan.it wasnt new york or seattle that e klan excercised thier power, but in republican run territories.had the right put in the effort to destroy them it would be a different story.but republicans are all about states rights over big government, and with that freedom they permitted the kkk to run roughshot.

niether the right or the left are exclusively the party of the racist, as we know the left cant get enoughof calling for the death of jews.but it is the right that has refused for over half a century to proactively decry racism, as the rest of our culture does.they are guilty of racism by omission.passive acceptance of malevoence, carrying water for racists.

did pro-segregation rand paul win? and you ask why the right would get tagged still as racist?

sure there are a few crackpots on the right but most of what you say is lies and propaganda.

dude, you don't know what you're talking about.

First, congoboy doesn't represent the GOP. This "article" is from the Wikipedia, NOT the GOP, so to say that the republicans are trying to revise history to make their own party look bad is just dumb.

Secondly, the GOP, unlike the Dummycrats, just underwent a soul-searching and house cleaning. There has been a resurgence of conservative values because the reason the GOP got its can crushed over the previous elections was because they had lost their way and were doing much of what they criticized the Dems for doing. Many of the progressive GOP (like Mike Castle) were cleared out of their positions, and replaced with true conservatives. The GOP is NOT "fractured", that's an exaggeration. Clearly, the Democrats are incapable of learning from THEIR mistakes, and are set to elect Queen Nancy P as minority leader, even though it is directly HER fault, even more than Obama's, that the Dems just lost their power and are headed to an even greater ass kicking in 2012.

As for the whole KKK bullshit, wtf are you talking about? The Southerners were Dixiecrats, eventually became the Democrats, and the Dems have had a long time hold on the south for years. The GOP is FINALLY gaining ground there. Ask yourself about your presumption (which was totally false)...how would you possibly conclude that the South would have been GOP during the Jim Crow years when the GOP was Lincoln's party, and he was HATED in the south?!

There are members of BOTH parties with ties to the Klan, although gratefully they are few and neither party wants them in their midst.

ah, the victim mentality in full expression:
"above all else, let the black community decide how to tell the tale.let those subject to the injustices tell of them, not those who comitted them.just as we wouldnt accept german revisionism of the holocaust, we must yield to tha african american community in regards to what happened."

That's total and complete horse hockey. There is a definite need that is being met of hearing black voices that teach about their experience, but it's simply foolish to say that when discussing an entire 100+ year period of our history one group shouldn't talk about their position on things and should "yield" to another just based on their skin color.

I suppose you'd be willing to "yield" to demands that you give up huge tax sums for reparations just because a few blacks demand it?!

same means of observational deductions that you predicate your "journalism" on.
when abandoning facts in favor of opinion, this is what you get.its a two way street.
my opinion is your propaganda.
and your opinion is my propaganda.

but the most basic fact doesnt change, wich is the kkk had its greatest proliferation and success under republican leadership.not in vermont, or maine, or washington state.
it is mississipi,alabama and georgia.
it was the republican south freedom riders traveled to.
it was the republican south where the military had to intervene (arkansas).
it was republican tennesse that exiled the jews.
and to this day, it is the republican south that offers the last elements of segregation in our society.no place else, but i republican land.

saying that the republicans are trying to revise history is a matter of deductive reasoning.
aside from congo providing the service of what the right are up to, to the point of absurdity in his endevours, who benefits from this revision?
if not the right attempting this revisionism, it must be some one who benefits greatly from the right, as this is an attempt (not this article, but the revisionist effort in general) is to remove the racist stain from republican history.

you just claimed a uniform psychology representative of the entire republican party, and im the one making statements that make me look dumb? the right just did some soul searching? man get off the fox.

you are right, both sides have dirty hands when it comes to the klan, but it was the republicans who accepted them.so much so that david duke was endorsed and accepted.both have the stain of the klan, but the right have taken a stance of tolerance of them, not rebuffing.

in the field of public opinion, yes yield to those who have first hand knowledge, not outsiders with an agenda.i have no problem with historians telling of the holocaust, but ill be damned if i will tolerate somone saying shit that i know to be just wrong, as fact based on personal opinion over history.

we should yield cuz the history, is already ours.our side is well told.so much so it IS the history, unlike black history that is for some reason secondary.relegated to feb.not part of our overall accounts.