RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False?

RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 12:07:18 PM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist) Anthony Johnson Black Slave Owner March 8, 1665 in VA

Termyn8or -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 12:25:51 PM)
Thanks, I was about to ask. But then that article, if accurate, brings up a few questions. Most of them were indentured servants, how did it become full blown slavery ? Was there English laws against it ? That would not surprise me. And the founders of the US who owned slaves, were they actually indentured servants but then able to be legally held under US law all the sudden ? T^T

KenDckey -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 3:09:30 PM)
Termys The answer is complex at best. The easiest answer is it depended on both when and where you lived

BamaD -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 3:13:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I read this on a youtube comment. The utter hypocrisy in Michelle's statement about slaves is that she belongs to the party that owned and mistreated those slaves, it wasn't until the Republican party was established that Republican President Lincoln took office that a bloody battle took place that resulted in ending slavery, and the slave owning Democrat party was dragged kicking and screaming to let their slaves go free. something you will never learn in public schools today, because in every part of our true history the left is hell bent on the truth dying. If this is true. Wow! I am glad to be right leaning! Screw the left! Drew Scott was done by Democrats on the court. In the 1860 election the pro slave candidates were Democrats. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclimation. A Republican Senate passed the 13th amendment. Republican states ratified the 13th amendment. Republicans supported the 1964 civil rights act by a much larger margine than the Democrats. For those that say that the attitudes have changed, in 2000 Bush spoke at the NAACP convention, and Democrats accused him of trying to steal "their" voters, even to the extent that he was illegally trying to take away votes that "belonged" to them. On the other hand a dictaorship has not worked out since the Roman Republic.

Greta75 -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 3:17:53 PM)
FR This matters greatly, because one would think the core of reps were pro-slavery, but it's really good to know, they were not. Dems to a certain extent, to me, lately has been anti-freedom everything. In the past, slavery is a form of anti-freedom. Today, regulating free speech is a form of anti-freedom. I come from a country with no free speech, but our party is honest, transparent and open about it and justify all of their actions, they are accountable to us for every single thing and explains openly the reasons why they implement anything that may seen controversial. It's never done in a deceptive way. The dems often do things in a veiled way from my own observations anyway. Saying one thing but doing another. The way they handled their primaries, with super delegates influencing the choice, is another form of anti-freedom and rather dictatorial. Not respecting people's choice. There is a pattern with that party. And to me, history has not changed. You can curtail people's freedom in many other subtle ways.

AtUrCervix -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 3:34:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I read this on a youtube comment. The utter hypocrisy in Michelle's statement about slaves is that she belongs to the party that owned and mistreated those slaves, it wasn't until the Republican party was established that Republican President Lincoln took office that a bloody battle took place that resulted in ending slavery, and the slave owning Democrat party was dragged kicking and screaming to let their slaves go free. something you will never learn in public schools today, because in every part of our true history the left is hell bent on the truth dying. If this is true. Wow! I am glad to be right leaning! Screw the left! The White house was built with slaves, white, Irish, Polish, Chinese and other paid workers. It was a time when slaves were predominate. It's like saying "I was alive when Slurpees were the predominate drink at 7-11's." It's like saying that "when I was a child they built super highways out of concrete...and then later out of asphalt." THAT was the time....sue me....that was the time....thankfully we've all grown past that but....that was the time. (Get the flying fuck over it!!!...That was the time...none of us today hire slaves.... Get the FUCK over it). We don't now....we did....it's over.

BamaD -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 3:47:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 FR This matters greatly, because one would think the core of reps were pro-slavery, but it's really good to know, they were not. Dems to a certain extent, to me, lately has been anti-freedom everything. In the past, slavery is a form of anti-freedom. Today, regulating free speech is a form of anti-freedom. I come from a country with no free speech, but our party is honest, transparent and open about it and justify all of their actions, they are accountable to us for every single thing and explains openly the reasons why they implement anything that may seen controversial. It's never done in a deceptive way. The dems often do things in a veiled way from my own observations anyway. Saying one thing but doing another. The way they handled their primaries, with super delegates influencing the choice, is another form of anti-freedom and rather dictatorial. Not respecting people's choice. There is a pattern with that party. And to me, history has not changed. You can curtail people's freedom in many other subtle ways. The Republican Party grew out of the Free Soil Party who's only issue was the abolition of slavery.

BamaD -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 3:51:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 I read this on a youtube comment. The utter hypocrisy in Michelle's statement about slaves is that she belongs to the party that owned and mistreated those slaves, it wasn't until the Republican party was established that Republican President Lincoln took office that a bloody battle took place that resulted in ending slavery, and the slave owning Democrat party was dragged kicking and screaming to let their slaves go free. something you will never learn in public schools today, because in every part of our true history the left is hell bent on the truth dying. If this is true. Wow! I am glad to be right leaning! Screw the left! The White house was built with slaves, white, Irish, Polish, Chinese and other paid workers. It was a time when slaves were predominate. It's like saying "I was alive when Slurpees were the predominate drink at 7-11's." It's like saying that "when I was a child they built super highways out of concrete...and then later out of asphalt." THAT was the time....sue me....that was the time....thankfully we've all grown past that but....that was the time. (Get the flying fuck over it!!!...That was the time...none of us today hire slaves.... Get the FUCK over it). We don't now....we did....it's over. Hire slaves? Borrow maybe. Own maybe. Rent maybe. But we abolished slavery 140 years ago. Before Brazil. Before Austrailia. Long before Sudan, where it is still practiced.

PeonForHer -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 4:50:33 PM)
quote: Anyway, here is a lifelong Republican explaining exactly what you are asking about. It is farther down into the article, but he goes back to the history of the Republican and Democrat parties to explain their philosophies in the past and how they changed to what they are today. [Etc] Thanks for that, WS. Fascinating, to me, as an outsider. More than a few comparisons to the UK, which I'm still pondering. It always did feel so odd to me that, despite the vastly different histories of the USA and the UK, the two countries ended up in such a similar spot with Reagan and Thatcher.

catize -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 9:06:28 PM)
It is my understanding that most Americans (at least those who could afford it) owned slaves; their political party had very little to do with it. It is my understanding historically that the main rationale for the Emancipation proclamation was a strategy to win the war---freedom for the men and women held in slavery was two-fold; first, it economically ruined the southern states, and freed black men could join the war against the south to fight for their freedom. It is my understanding that Lincoln freed only the slaves from the states who were trying to secede from the union. to determine your party/candidate choice based on events from 200+ years ago is quite silly---a large stretch to justify your stance.

BamaD -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 9:15:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize It is my understanding that most Americans (at least those who could afford it) owned slaves; their political party had very little to do with it. It is my understanding historically that the main rationale for the Emancipation proclamation was a strategy to win the war---freedom for the men and women held in slavery was two-fold; first, it economically ruined the southern states, and freed black men could join the war against the south to fight for their freedom. It is my understanding that Lincoln freed only the slaves from the states who were trying to secede from the union. to determine your party/candidate choice based on events from 200+ years ago is quite silly---a large stretch to justify your stance. Yes the Emacipation Proclimation only "freed" slaves in areas not controled by the Union. Lincoln was an antislavery and joined the Republican because of their anti slave stance. It was the Republicans who followed through and passed the 13th.

BamaD -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 9:19:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize It is my understanding that most Americans (at least those who could afford it) owned slaves; their political party had very little to do with it. It is my understanding historically that the main rationale for the Emancipation proclamation was a strategy to win the war---freedom for the men and women held in slavery was two-fold; first, it economically ruined the southern states, and freed black men could join the war against the south to fight for their freedom. It is my understanding that Lincoln freed only the slaves from the states who were trying to secede from the union. to determine your party/candidate choice based on events from 200+ years ago is quite silly---a large stretch to justify your stance. Your understanding is wrong, not only did most Americans not own slaves, but most southerners didn't. Do you realize that if your ubderstanding were accurate that most Americans would be black?

catize -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 9:29:21 PM)
quote: Your understanding is wrong, not only did most Americans not own slaves, but most southerners didn't. Do you realize that if your ubderstanding were accurate that most Americans would be black? Because white slave owners raped their black slave womem? Perhaps I should have said the landed rich owned slaves and those who didn't were not necessarily anti-slavery. they just couldn't afford them. If most southerners were not slave owners, why did Lincoln believe freeing the southern slaves would win the war for the north?

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 9:37:20 PM)
Maybe because he thought it would make the slaves worth nothing and thereby bankrupt the slave owners and hence the southern economy, what was left of it.

BamaD -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/28/2016 9:37:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: catize quote: Your understanding is wrong, not only did most Americans not own slaves, but most southerners didn't. Do you realize that if your ubderstanding were accurate that most Americans would be black? Because white slave owners raped their black slave womem? Perhaps I should have said the landed rich owned slaves and those who didn't were not necessarily anti-slavery. they just couldn't afford them. If most southerners were not slave owners, why did Lincoln believe freeing the southern slaves would win the war for the north? Because it kept England and France out of the war. And if it didn't free anyslaves in the south what good would it do till that war was over. No, because there would have been more slaves than whites, this happened in S Carolina, not because everyone owned slaves but because there were more large plantations.

MrRodgers -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/29/2016 12:24:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 FR This matters greatly, because one would think the core of reps were pro-slavery, but it's really good to know, they were not. Dems to a certain extent, to me, lately has been anti-freedom everything. In the past, slavery is a form of anti-freedom. Today, regulating free speech is a form of anti-freedom. I come from a country with no free speech, but our party is honest, transparent and open about it and justify all of their actions, they are accountable to us for every single thing and explains openly the reasons why they implement anything that may seen controversial. It's never done in a deceptive way. The dems often do things in a veiled way from my own observations anyway. Saying one thing but doing another. The way they handled their primaries, with super delegates influencing the choice, is another form of anti-freedom and rather dictatorial. Not respecting people's choice. There is a pattern with that party. And to me, history has not changed. You can curtail people's freedom in many other subtle ways. The Republican Party grew out of the Free Soil Party who's only issue was the abolition of slavery. But also in addition to anti-slavery ex-Whigs and ex-Know Nothing party members, all of whom adopted opposition of the Nebraska-Kansas act which repealed the Missouri compromise...as a single issue. This helped the repubs come to dominate the northern states and midwest by 1858. The election of Lincoln had the south so worried about abolitionism that 9 states seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated. 5 more later seceded and after Fort Sumter. 4 slave states remained in the union. Interesting time-line.

vincentML -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/29/2016 8:11:47 AM)
quote: This matters greatly, because one would think the core of reps were pro-slavery, but it's really good to know, they were not. In 1860 they were not. In 2016 the Trump GOP campaign is energized by the presence of a black president in the White House. The Trumpsters are clearly today's racists no-nothings. The ideological shoe is on the other foot. quote: Dems to a certain extent, to me, lately has been anti-freedom everything. In the past, slavery is a form of anti-freedom. Today, regulating free speech is a form of anti-freedom. Oy! Such naiveté. Where is speech being regulated in America? Where have the Dems been "anti-freedom?"

Musicmystery -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/29/2016 9:09:28 AM)
I'm pro-female slavery. Does that make the Green Party the new party of slavery?

Lucylastic -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/29/2016 9:24:26 AM)
I know you have libertarian views and are a Gorean, so thats all good,[:D] have you decided on Stein? over Johnson? what makes you lean more green if you dont mind me askin.... Im genuinely interested. I dont seem to be able to take a liking to Stein herself, but maybe Im missing something...beyond the platform. Ive been used to multi parties all my life and often voted for smaller ones, Im just wondering what the difference is in your eye

WickedsDesire -> RE: Dems were pro-slavers, Reps ended Slavery, True or False? (7/29/2016 9:35:42 AM)
What is a slave is a better question and I would sell all women for cake money, the lookers I would keep to clean my cooker and fetch long begone kitty tributes from underneath it....

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875