What is true however, is that the call to preserve āSouthern Heritageā and to explain away the symbols of the Confederacy as anything other than symbols of slavery and racism, comes by and large form those that declare themselves to be conservatives.
And that Southern Democrats in the war/postwar period were mostly conservative (Abraham Lincoln, for crying out loud, was as big a ābig government libā that could have existed back then).
Likewise for anyone who would judge modern southerners for what their predecessors did.
Nice to know you think Washington, Jefferson et al were trash.
I asked no question, I posited a theory in answer to a theoretical question. If you donāt like it, tough ā ā ā ā ā So no, you did not give any question the response it deserved because you did not respond to any question. You knee jerked a childish response. Why am I not surprised? Does the thought of ending slavery without 1/2 million dead bother you?
What dodge? You said Southern democrats, you didnāt specify a time period. Wasnāt much different between post CW southern democrats and pre 1964 southern democrats.
I was responding to a person who specified a time frameā¦so why would you assume I was talking about any other time frame than what the poster specified?
Read Lincolnās words again. Yes, the sentiments were there on both sides. A big reason the South seceded was because of the economic stranglehold the North had put on it.
Probably a huge coincidence that all this Lost Cause bull ā ā ā ā fell out of style for decades, right up until civil rights became a big thing. Then it got super popular again. Wonder why.
Essentially the instant the South lost its outsized influence (it could control Congress by getting just a few Northern Congresspeople on its sideā¦that was all but gone by 1860), they wanted out.
In the senate yes. Representation was always equal.
Not in the house for most of the early 19th century, though. They were over represented due to the 3/5ths clause. States that banned slavery only counted their white and black populations. Southern states got to count all of that plus 3/5s of their enslaved population.
you are really confused. The 3/5 compromise did not count slaves once and then again as 3/5. It counted them only as 3/5. Blacks in the north were counted whole, because they were not slaves. The south wanted to count them whole, the north did not want to count them at all. Neither here nor there however, VA was the most populous state.
They shouldnāt have been counted at all. Legally speaking they werenāt āpeople.ā They were property.
The northern statesā position was the correct one. If the southern states got to count their enslaved property then the north should have got to count their dogs and cats.
Because that is exactly what slaves were. They were property. Not people in any legal sense of the word.
The south got far more power in the house than they were ever entitled to. And their interests dominated the federal government until the 1850s.
You donāt even see the contradiction in your reasoning here do you? You guys are so conditioned to spout the lefts narrative that you donāt even think about what you are saying.
Lincoln was a Republican that hated slavery. Johnson was a southern Democrat that hated slavery. Read the post you responded to. If the Republicans that began getting elected in the south caused resentment. Iām assuming you believe they had to be Lincoln Republicans, then who were the Democrats that had regained power by the late 1870s? Presumably they were pro slavery Democrats right? Yet by your statement southern Democrats were conservatives that hated slavery like Andrew Johnsonā¦ See what Iām getting at here? Please, how about a little consistency in which party stands for what.