Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes

Sun, 24 Jul 2016 14:07:18 -0700

This is fascinating. Conservatives used to hide their racism by using code phrases like "states rights", but in the era of Trump it has out and proud completely in the open. This despicable post is a an excellent example of the genre.
Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> 
Sunday, July 24, 2016 9:19 AM
Identifying 1980 as the beginning of the GOP stranglehold on the South is not historically accurate. It started in 1964 with Goldwater. In 1968 the South went for George Wallace. In 1972 the South went for Nixon. Carter's 1976 victory is the ONLY election since 1960 in which the Democratic candidate won a majority of the states in the deep South. 




The *Jig* was up for the Democrats by 1964.The party of slavery, 
segregation, Jim Crow, eugenics,couldn't continue. The Supreme Court 
was shutting down segregation. It had to revamp. The scam had to 
change in order to stay alive. Lyndon B. Johnson noted that there were 
more blacks registering to vote in Texas than whites. He said" I have 
to give them something, not much, but enough to keep them quiet. I'll 
have  niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." He 
began his Great Society campaign. He created the Welfare system, with 
welfare checks, food stamps, section 8 housing etc. All a woman had to 
do was raise her family without a man. No husband, no male roll model 
in the house. Thus he recreated the *new*  slave plantation. The new 
massa was the federal government with the intent of keeping it run by 
Democrats. Do as I say if you want to keep what you've got. These 
benefits were also extended to the newly arriving immigrants and this 
is the purpose of new immigration reform, to insure another 10-20 
million new Democratic voters. It's all a scam for political power for 
self enrichment. The people receiving these benefits rarely rise out 
of their station and go from one generation to the next while the 
Party bosses thrive. You ever know a politician to retire *not* 
significantly better ff than when he was first elected? What is the 
state of poverty today as opposed to 1964? About the same.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:* "Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]" 
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>

*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Saturday, July 23, 2016 8:44 PM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes


I didn't mention it because that was a remnant of a Republican Party 
that no longer exists. Just like the Democratic Party, the Republicans 
were split between between Northern and Midwestern liberals and 
moderates (the true descendents of Lincoln) on one side and 
conservatives on the other. Starting in 1964, and becoming fully 
realized in the Reagan years, the conservatives completely took over 
the party. Goldwater lost the election, but he was enthusiastically 
supported by Ronald Reagan (who campaigned for him), and like 
Goldwater Reagan opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The hostility 
expressed towards civil rights was a minority opinion in the 
Republican Party of 1964, but by 1980 the Goldwater/Reagan wing 
completely controlled the Party and the Northern Republican party had 
all but disappeared (there is not a single GOP House member remaining 
from New England).



"Goldwater was never elected and the Republican party distanced 
themselves from him since." Where did you get the idea that the GOP 
has "distanced" itself from Barry Goldwater? Nothing could be further 
from the truth. Goldwater inaugurated the movement that Reagan 
inherited, which then completely took over the Party. Far from 
distancing themselves from him, Goldwater is correctly viewed as a 
founding father of the modern conservative movement.



"More Republicans, who were the minority party, voted for the Civil 
Rights Act than Democrats." Nope. Look it up. In the Senate 45 
Democrats voted for it, compared to 27 Republicans. In the House 153 
Democrats voted for it, compared to 136 Republicans. However, aside 
from these numbers, the important point is that ALL of the Democratic 
No votes came from the South, the inheritors of the Southern 
Democratic Party of 1860. This wing of the party no longer exists. It 
has been completely taken over by Republicans, initially led by Strom 
Thurmond (another famous segregationist) who switched parties in 1964.



Denying that the GOP took over what used to be the Southern Democratic 
Party because only 1% switched parties is just silly. Very few 
politicians formally switch parties. It is a rare event for ANY 
reason. That has nothing to do with the historical transformation of 
the Parties that began in 1964.





All of the examples you provide of Republican support for and 
Democratic opposition to civil rights occur well before 1980. Those 
political parties are dead and have been for 45 years.




Tom Huffman <mailto:t...@chromapure.com>
Saturday, July 23, 2016 8:44 PM

I didn't mention it because that was a remnant of a Republican Party 
that no longer exists. Just like the Democratic Party, the Republicans 
were split between between Northern and Midwestern liberals and 
moderates (the true descendents of Lincoln) on one side and 
conservatives on the other. Starting in 1964, and becoming fully 
realized in the Reagan years, the conservatives completely took over 
the party. Goldwater lost the election, but he was enthusiastically 
supported by Ronald Reagan (who campaigned for him), and like 
Goldwater Reagan opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The hostility 
expressed towards civil rights was a minority opinion in the 
Republican Party of 1964, but by 1980 the Goldwater/Reagan wing 
completely controlled the Party and the Northern Republican party had 
all but disappeared (there is not a single GOP House member remaining 
from New England).



"Goldwater was never elected and the Republican party distanced 
themselves from him since." Where did you get the idea that the GOP 
has "distanced" itself from Barry Goldwater? Nothing could be further 
from the truth. Goldwater inaugurated the movement that Reagan 
inherited, which then completely took over the Party. Far from 
distancing themselves from him, Goldwater is correctly viewed as a 
founding father of the modern conservative movement.



"More Republicans, who were the minority party, voted for the Civil 
Rights Act than Democrats." Nope. Look it up. In the Senate 45 
Democrats voted for it, compared to 27 Republicans. In the House 153 
Democrats voted for it, compared to 136 Republicans. However, aside 
from these numbers, the important point is that ALL of the Democratic 
No votes came from the South, the inheritors of the Southern 
Democratic Party of 1860. This wing of the party no longer exists. It 
has been completely taken over by Republicans, initially led by Strom 
Thurmond (another famous segregationist) who switched parties in 1964.



Denying that the GOP took over what used to be the Southern Democratic 
Party because only 1% switched parties is just silly. Very few 
politicians formally switch parties. It is a rare event for ANY 
reason. That has nothing to do with the historical transformation of 
the Parties that began in 1964.



Identifying 1980 as the beginning of the GOP stranglehold on the South 
is not historically accurate. It started in 1964 with Goldwater. In 
1968 the South went for George Wallace. In 1972 the South went for 
Nixon. Carter's 1976 victory is the ONLY election since 1960 in which 
the Democratic candidate won a majority of the states in the deep South.



All of the examples you provide of Republican support for and 
Democratic opposition to civil rights occur well before 1980. Those 
political parties are dead and have been for 45 years.
Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>

Saturday, July 23, 2016 8:48 AM

Of course you didn't mention that the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have 
passed without Republican support, nor the Voting Rights Act or 
Women's Suffrage . More Republicans, who were the minority party, 
voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.Goldwater was never 
elected and the Republican party distanced themselves from him since. 
George Wallace was a life long Democrat. It's commonly said by 
Democrats that all the Southern segregationist Democrats became 
Republicans. Dinesh D'Souza points out in his film that actually only 
about 1% of them did. The rest *died on the vine* as Southern 
Democratic strategies changed..The south went strongly Republican as a 
result of the failed Jimmy Carter administration. They've been strong 
Republican states since, with the exception of two Southern white boys 
named Clinton and Gore who brought those states back to the Republican 
party.
The only thing that the Republicans would have in common with 
Jefferson Davis is a belief in a  strong tenth amendment, limitations 
of the federal government. Davis would never have supported 
abolition,full civil rights and full citizenship for former slaves, 
Women's Suffrage, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Federal 
troops enforcing integration of the Little Rock Schools. These were 
targeted means of limiting the tenth amendment, strongly supported by 
Republicans with strong opposition by Democrats.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:* "Tom Huffman t...@chromapure.com [FairfieldLife]" 
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>

*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Saturday, July 23, 2016 1:28 AM
*Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes


The Democratic Party was split in 1860 between the Northern and 
Southern Democrats. The main point of contention was the status of 
slavery in the western territories. The Southern Democrats wanted to 
ensure the right to own slaves in the territories, and potential new 
states. The Northern Democrats wanted to leave the issue of slavery up 
to the residents of the territory. Thus, saying that the Democratic 
Party "supported slavery" and "expansion of the slave states" is an 
accurate description of the Southern Democratic Party only, the party 
of secession. However, the Northern Democrats did support enforcement 
of the Fugitive Slave Act, though even Lincoln's record on this is 
mixed. The act was not repealed until 1864, and it was sporadically 
enforced throughout Lincoln's first term.



Yes, the Republicans "were" the abolitionist party, with emphasis on 
the past tense. Starting in 1964, however, the GOP underwent a 
profound transformation. Barry Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 
Civil Rights Act resulted in the Republicans winning Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the first time the 
GOP had won the deep South in a Presidential election since 
Reconstruction. In 1968 the same states mostly voted for George 
Wallace, at the time an unrepentant segregationist. Since then, the 
deep South has been solidly Republican, with the exception of 1976 and 
1992 when 2 Democratic Southern governors (Carter and Clinton) were 
able to attract significant southern support.



The Republican Party may have began as the party of Lincoln. However, 
for the last 50 years it has been the party of Jefferson Davis.





Tom Huffman <mailto:t...@chromapure.com>
Saturday, July 23, 2016 1:28 AM

The Democratic Party was split in 1860 between the Northern and 
Southern Democrats. The main point of contention was the status of 
slavery in the western territories. The Southern Democrats wanted to 
ensure the right to own slaves in the territories, and potential new 
states. The Northern Democrats wanted to leave the issue of slavery up 
to the residents of the territory. Thus, saying that the Democratic 
Party "supported slavery" and "expansion of the slave states" is an 
accurate description of the Southern Democratic Party only, the party 
of secession. However, the Northern Democrats did support enforcement 
of the Fugitive Slave Act, though even Lincoln's record on this is 
mixed. The act was not repealed until 1864, and it was sporadically 
enforced throughout Lincoln's first term.



Yes, the Republicans "were" the abolitionist party, with emphasis on 
the past tense. Starting in 1964, however, the GOP underwent a 
profound transformation. Barry Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 
Civil Rights Act resulted in the Republicans winning Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina, the first time the 
GOP had won the deep South in a Presidential election since 
Reconstruction. In 1968 the same states mostly voted for George 
Wallace, at the time an unrepentant segregationist. Since then, the 
deep South has been solidly Republican, with the exception of 1976 and 
1992 when 2 Democratic Southern governors (Carter and Clinton) were 
able to attract significant southern support.



The Republican Party may have began as the party of Lincoln. However, 
for the last 50 years it has been the party of Jefferson Davis.



Mike Dixon mdixon.6...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
<mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>

Friday, July 22, 2016 7:58 PM

Dinesh D'Souza goes much deeper into this in his new film,"Hillary's 
America". The Republicans were the abolitionist party and the 
Democrats were the party of the status quo, who supported slavery and 
the return of runaway slaves to their owners and the expansion of 
slave states..



------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:* "yifux...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]" 
<FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>

*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 6:23 PM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Civil War in 4 minutes


The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the States 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wJ1gnBK0c>



        
image <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wJ1gnBK0c>
        
        

The Civil War in Four Minutes: The War Between the State... 
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wJ1gnBK0c>
Learn more at: http://www.civilwar.org/education/in4/ Historian Garry 
Adelman gives an overview of the causes, campaigns, an...

        
View on www.youtube.com <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wJ1gnBK0c>
        
Preview by Yahoo
































					Reply via email to