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!

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!

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.