PDA

View Full Version : A new kind of Republican?



Retread
05-22-2012, 04:21 PM
Not really but the LSM is just now admitting they exist.

Mia Love is unlike any Congressional candidate ever -- she is African-American, she is Mormon, and she is conservative. (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/kind-republican-101708014.html)


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_K9Fcwp18S4/T5QrogSj_KI/AAAAAAAAGWw/8-kLGl0vTK0/s320/mia.jpg

Starbuck
05-22-2012, 05:40 PM
I would take a real push, but long term perhaps The Congressional Black Caucus can be shifted to the right over the long term.

But The Republican Party has a long way to go before we can say we are still the party of Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt and Bill Taft made destructive changes, which were only partially corrected by Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. As a result we are a long way from returning to the country envisioned by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. I will leave out the Adamses.

Janice
05-22-2012, 06:39 PM
Posted last month here too. (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?48831-Black-Conservative-Wins-Utah-Nomination&highlight=Utah) "A new kind of Republican?" - I suppose all the tea party conservatives sent to congress are sort of "a new kind of Republican" when you think about it. "New" that is until the ol' boys club gets a hold of them and "re-schools" them in the proper "ways of the world".

They all seem to start out flying high with high minded ideals... until the elites get a hold of them and put an anchor around their necks or something. Theres "something" in the air or the water in Washington. Dont know what it is.

Retread
05-22-2012, 07:12 PM
I................

But The Republican Party has a long way to go before we can say we are still the party of Lincoln. ..........

Gawd - becoming the party of dis-honest abe is what has caused the GOP to run off the tracks and become dimo-lite to start with. RINO, CINO and tax and spend at the expense of the citizen.

Starbuck
05-22-2012, 08:00 PM
Gawd - becoming the party of dis-honest abe is what has caused the GOP to run off the tracks and become dimo-lite to start with. RINO, CINO and tax and spend at the expense of the citizen.

Yeah, I've seen you say that before. What are your reasons?

Retread
05-23-2012, 11:00 AM
Yeah, I've seen you say that before. What are your reasons?

dis-honest abe was very instrumental in the erosion of the constitution. His efforts to support corporations on guvmint funds and efforts, his complete dishonesty in 'freeing the slaves', and his attack on the state of SC when in fact they had complete legality in their actions.

Did you know:
the war of northern aggression was based on $$$$ rather than slavery or secession? The northern 'businessman' wanted to buy the southern agribusiness product but refused to pay equal to what Europe was willing to pay.
Many nations eliminated slavery without a single shot fired or life lost. The US could have done the same but abe refused to even consider it.
The war was in it's second year before lincoln even mentioned abolition and when he did union soldiers expressed their difference of opinion, some by gathering up their belongings and going home.
The right to succession was recognized by the public, the news and most of the congress.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

He wasn't the first president to make executive dents in the constitution but he and his buddies cost more US lives than in any other time in the country's history and almost destroyed a generation.

DumbAss Tanker
05-23-2012, 12:02 PM
That sure was clever of him to maneuver those innocent patriots in South Carolina into opening fire on a Federal installation, and ghost-writing all those secession declarations.

Starbuck
05-23-2012, 12:11 PM
Yeah, I knew almost all of that. I say almost because the matter for why there was a war is a matter for historians much more able than I. Generally, I don't buy into vast conspiracy theories like businessmen orchestrating a war, although William Randolph Hearst comes as close as anyone I am aware of.

And I was already aware the The Emancipation Proclamation was an empty document since it only applied to territories that were no longer (by secession) part of The United States.

The President that followed the letter of the law most closely was probably Taft. He went on to become a Supreme Court Justice, which is what he wanted all along. He was not a popular President.

All-in-all, I like Lincoln.

Retread
05-23-2012, 01:26 PM
That sure was clever of him to maneuver those innocent patriots in South Carolina into opening fire on a Federal installation, and ghost-writing all those secession declarations.

First - the fort was inside the state of SC
Second - SC asked the US to remove the troops since they has legally seceded from the union and no longer were subject to the occupation of the troops
third - Instead of removing the troops, they were resupplied which, in the eyes of SC, was an act of war. The firing on the fort was entirely legal.

The states who seceded all did so and did so legally, not because of slavery but to avoid tariffs on their goods that would reduce them to accepting even lower income from their goods.

DumbAss Tanker
05-23-2012, 03:15 PM
First - the fort was inside the state of SC
Second - SC asked the US to remove the troops since they has legally seceded from the union and no longer were subject to the occupation of the troops
third - Instead of removing the troops, they were resupplied which, in the eyes of SC, was an act of war. The firing on the fort was entirely legal.

The states who seceded all did so and did so legally, not because of slavery but to avoid tariffs on their goods that would reduce them to accepting even lower income from their goods.

Since secession was never provided for in the Constitution, it's absurd to say that it was legal, it was a completely unresolved issue. The argument about its legality was something the South decided to put to trial of arms, they lost, that decided it forever. In fact, since property ceded to the national government for a defense installation is gone forever until it is given back willingly, just like property ceded to a neighboring state in a boundary resolution would be, the whole 'It was SC's property' argument is really the part with the flaky legal basis. As a casus belli, resupplying the fort pales in comparison to the acts of secession, but it was not the North that initiated hostilities.

Actions have consequences, a fact we all want the Libs and Dems to deal with today, but the latter-day Southern partisans seem uniquely incapable of coming to grips with the ones initiated by the firebrands in South Carolina back in the day, so it was 'All Lincoln's fault,' which sounds a lot like 'It was all Bush's fault' to me. The economics of import/export were one facet of twenty different things that led to the clash, and undoubtedly one of the more minor ones in the minds of most of the populace and military on both sides, big as they may have been loomed to some larger political and economic figures of the day, and they had far more to do with Congressional politics than Presidential ones.

I've seen the same stupid BS come up again and again on Conservative forums, nothing good ever comes of it. I'll leave it at that, we can just each regard the other as hopelessly misinformed and I won't lose any sleep or bandwidth over it.

Retread
05-23-2012, 03:31 PM
tank - I respect you and believe that you believe what the union-biased historians have taught you to be the truth. I do not. I did not get my information from the history texts but from writings concurrent with the activities leading up to the invasion of SC.
Be that as it may, in this case, I respectfully disagree and state for the public view that the GOP claim as 'the party of Lincoln' is the main reason I refused early in life and continue to deny any current or future membership in that party. As the dims are the party of LBJ, mr peanut and the little o I will just as surely never accept being placed with that group either.

Bailey
05-23-2012, 03:44 PM
Every time I see one of these threads the only thing I can think of is "get over it" but I guess they never will.

fettpett
05-23-2012, 10:45 PM
tank - I respect you and believe that you believe what the union-biased historians have taught you to be the truth. I do not. I did not get my information from the history texts but from writings concurrent with the activities leading up to the invasion of SC.
Be that as it may, in this case, I respectfully disagree and state for the public view that the GOP claim as 'the party of Lincoln' is the main reason I refused early in life and continue to deny any current or future membership in that party. As the dims are the party of LBJ, mr peanut and the little o I will just as surely never accept being placed with that group either.

First, the GOP was the liberal party of it's day, was also the conglomeration of several parties, including the Whigs, Know-Nothings, Free Solider's and several smaller anti-slavery parties, the party was FOUNDED on anti-slavery issues, namely the Kansas-Nebraska Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise . Lincoln himself was Anti-Slavery from the day he saw it first hand in Missouri. That said Lincoln saw the preservation of the Union as his job, not the disbanding of Slavery (which he did see as a State issue, but didn't want it to expand beyond it's reach at the time) the Republican party's stance was support for free labor and free land, both which would have strangled Slavery.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political tool that he used for one reason and one reason only, to keep England out of the fight. Both England and France were very close to joining forces with the Confederacy at the time and Lincoln needed a way to keep them out. The win at Antietam was the major victory and political clout he needed to keep them out.

As for Succession, both Lincoln AND Buchanan opposed it, however Buchanan (being a Democrat) did little in the way to stop was SC and the other States did and was the one that caused the issues at Fort Sumter as he could have pulled the troops at any time between December and March, but in typical Democrat fashion had downsized the Army and slowed the building of the Fort. It was SC that fired on the ships that tried to resupply the Fort.

Chuck58
05-24-2012, 12:20 AM
dis-honest abe was very instrumental in the erosion of the constitution. His efforts to support corporations on guvmint funds and efforts, his complete dishonesty in 'freeing the slaves', and his attack on the state of SC when in fact they had complete legality in their actions.

Did you know:
the war of northern aggression was based on $$$$ rather than slavery or secession? The northern 'businessman' wanted to buy the southern agribusiness product but refused to pay equal to what Europe was willing to pay.
Many nations eliminated slavery without a single shot fired or life lost. The US could have done the same but abe refused to even consider it.
The war was in it's second year before lincoln even mentioned abolition and when he did union soldiers expressed their difference of opinion, some by gathering up their belongings and going home.
The right to succession was recognized by the public, the news and most of the congress.
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave.

He wasn't the first president to make executive dents in the constitution but he and his buddies cost more US lives than in any other time in the country's history and almost destroyed a generation.

In addition, when Blacks were allowed into the Union Army they were paid less than the whites and segregated in their own units.

Believe it or not, there were many, many Blacks who served in the Confederate Army, and many of those carried rifles and fought. They weren't just wagon drivers, clerks etc. They were paid the same wage as the white Confederate soldier and were not segregated.

The war, as mentioned was about money. When Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, there were riots in many Union units. They would fight to keep the Union; they did not enlist to fight to free slaves.

I think the emancipation proclamation might have freed 3 or 4 slaves. Grant's wife had one or two and Lincoln's wife had a couple.

Starbuck
05-24-2012, 10:05 AM
.................Believe it or not, there were many, many Blacks who served in the Confederate Army, and many of those carried rifles and fought..............

I see this comment a lot on the internet and can even find websites devoted to blacks who fought on the side of the Confederacy.
But the writings of serious historians who have researched the subject have convinced me that it never happened.

We can never completely know what was on Lincoln's mind, since he was said to have been "the most shut mouthed man who ever existed", and he died before he could record his memoirs. But I agree with the majority who think it was an attempt to create an uprising in the south by slaves, thereby detracting soldiers from the war itself.

Zeus
05-24-2012, 10:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmHB2jduRhs&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyhfEvqceB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhEBE68g26s&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1MqCtGt7nk&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bN78Augc8AY&feature=relmfu

Starbuck
05-24-2012, 12:10 PM
:adoration: Nice info, Zeus.:adoration:

fettpett
05-24-2012, 10:15 PM
But I agree with the majority who think it was an attempt to create an uprising in the south by slaves, thereby detracting soldiers from the war itself.

That may have been part of the reason, but not the main reason, as I said above the MAIN reason was the keep England and France out of the war and siding with the Confederacy, by making it about Slavery the British people were apposed to helping the CSA as they were very much against slavery.

Gina
05-24-2012, 10:20 PM
David Barton rox.





+1

Starbuck
05-24-2012, 10:26 PM
That may have been part of the reason, but not the main reason, as I said above the MAIN reason was the keep England and France out of the war and siding with the Confederacy, by making it about Slavery the British people were apposed to helping the CSA as they were very much against slavery.

That's a good thought, too. What we would all give if Lincoln had lived to write his own story.

fettpett
05-24-2012, 10:40 PM
That's a good thought, too. What we would all give if Lincoln had lived to write his own story.


agreed.


It's just a matter of looking at the international politics of the time, France was trying to help out the CSA by going in through Mexico and using them as a puppet (thus where Cinco de Mayo Holiday comes from) to ship weapons and other resources to the Confederacy. England wanted to seed the USA fall down a notch and supporting the CSA was their best option. Also prior to Antietam the war was going VERY poorly for the North and both England and France were close to legitimizing the CSA. Lincoln needed the victory to keep them out, then used that political clout to use the Emancipation Proclamation to keep England out long term.

Being a History buff and Alternate History fan, I've spent a lot of time reading up on the issues as the Civil War is one of THE major Points of Divergences for Alt History (along with WW2)

Rockntractor
05-24-2012, 10:45 PM
Being a History buff and Alternate History fan, I've spent a lot of time reading up on the issues as the Civil War is one of THE major Points of Divergences for Alt History (along with WW2)

Okay wise guy, when are you going to start posting some stuff in the history forum?

Chuck58
05-24-2012, 11:48 PM
I see this comment a lot on the internet and can even find websites devoted to blacks who fought on the side of the Confederacy.
But the writings of serious historians who have researched the subject have convinced me that it never happened.

We can never completely know what was on Lincoln's mind, since he was said to have been "the most shut mouthed man who ever existed", and he died before he could record his memoirs. But I agree with the majority who think it was an attempt to create an uprising in the south by slaves, thereby detracting soldiers from the war itself.

Most serious historians do dispute the fact, and arguing it is pointless. I'm not an historian, although I'm a fanatic on reading old journals, diaries, letters etc from that war. Many of them are online now.

Here's one comment for which I haven't a link. I save some of the more interesting.

Dr. Lewis Steiner, Union Surgeon, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission, observed General Stonewall Jackson's occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862. He wrote:

Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number of 64,000 Confederate troops. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but also in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie knives, dirks, etc. ... and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army and were promiscuously mixed up with all the Rebel horde."

and this:

Letter from James G. Bates' to his father reprinted in the 1 May 1863 "Winchester [Indiana] Journal" [the 13th IVI ["Hoosier Regiment"] was involved in operations around the Suffolk, Virginia area in April-May 1863 ]

"I can assure you Father, of a certainty, that the rebels have Negro soldiers in their army. One of their best sharp shooters and the boldest of them all here is a Negro. He dug himself a rifle pit last night [16 April 1863] just across the river and has been annoying our pickets opposite him very much to-day. You can see him plain enough with the naked eye, occasionally, to make sure that he is a "wooly-head," and with a spy-glass there is no mistaking him."

Retread
05-25-2012, 08:57 PM
'To the Confederate States Army, not the United States Army, goes the distinction of having the first black to minister to white troops. A Tennessee regiment had sought diligently for a chaplain, but had been unsuccessful until “Uncle Lewis,” who accompanied the regiment, was asked to conduct a religious service. Soldiers were so pleased that they asked Lewis to serve as their chaplain, which he did from the time of Pittsburgh Landing to war's end. “He is heard with respectful attention and for earnestness, zeal, and sincerity, can be surpassed by none"-- Religious Herald, 10 Sept 1863. To the men of the regiment as well as to the editors of the Richmond newspaper, the service of the black chaplain was a matter of great pride' (Barrow, 2001).

Did Blacks Serve in the Confederate Army as Soldiers? (http://scvcalifornia.blogspot.com/2008/07/black-confederates-southern-fantasy-or.html)