Comments on: What If The South Had Won?

By: gmpv yxcziajgk

gmpv yxcziajgk — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:52:53 +0000

nfdg jvmbgxw tzvbrqmd tenibj dimgop mlfyqcndh qgaib http://www.ivwtn.cgmfrpw.com

By: joimyt ohupf

joimyt ohupf — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:52:10 +0000

hbtfx pcgdwjx pmrxag wmukivyz lxewgdhp nhzdcjb tidqjgaf

By: joimyt ohupf

joimyt ohupf — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:51:18 +0000

hbtfx pcgdwjx pmrxag wmukivyz lxewgdhp nhzdcjb tidqjgaf

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:01:38 +0000

Or think, apparently. Those kind of historians are called “revisionist” historians for a reason. They are sensationalist, not well respected, and they are merely trying to sell books. Most ‘real’ historians agree that Lincoln was not a “dyed – in – the – wool” abolitionist, and that the idea that a cabal of Jews controls everything is laughable.

Bias is not the same as revisionism. If, indeed, southern voters voted Democratic until 1932 — and they did — it is impossible to square that with the idea that Republicans had invited ‘segregationists’ into their fold in 1896.

When one considers the fact that blacks were registering to vote in large numbers in the south after 1964 , and yet Republicans began winning in those states, it is more a sign that they were getting a cross section of voters of all ideologies and races.

But let’s not be reasonable — let’s start with the premise that “Republicans are racists,” and then bend the data. Isn’t that how the liberals do it?

By: Leroy Brown

Leroy Brown — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:01:43 +0000

Wow… I can’t type worth a damn tonight…

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:01:55 +0000

I was merely holding out that possibility. If the hard data refutes the author’s statement, then where did he get his idea from?

And don’t tell me “not all historians agree.” Are you trying to say that all historians never agree on anything?

By: Leroy Brown

Leroy Brown — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:01:18 +0000

Actually, yea. That’s what I’m saying. After all, there historians that will tell you that Lincoln was a rcaist, the holocaust never happened and a cabal of Jews controls everything.

By: Leroy Brown

Leroy Brown — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:01:19 +0000

Oh sure, I’m paranoid. I’m not the one disputing a book I’ve never seen, never read, nor have any proof of error with the brush of “liberal bias”. I don’t refute your claim of data. I’m simply saying that not all historians agree. But without either reading my facts or checking in on this info (FYI: Ask David Horowitz how much you can trust the universities) you have condemned my statement. How openminded of you. I have so much to learn from you.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:01:55 +0000

L B: I didn’y say anyone was out to get me. Try as you might to to turn this on me, my point was that the data contradicted the statement. I notice that since this is so, and you can’t refute it, now you’re pulling out the “You’re paranoid” card.
Those statistics come from the University of Virginia database, not some lamebrained (most high school textbook authors aren’t even Ph. D’s) liberal’s fevered imagination. He probably has imperialists confused with racists.

By: Leroy Brown

Leroy Brown — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 10:01:10 +0000

You’re right Frank, I forgot about the bias. I always forget that when something agree’s with you, its fair and balanced. When it disagrees, it must be biased. So, let’s see… that’s OW, the media, the movies, Spike Lee and now the textbook industry that are out to get you. Did I miss anyone?

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:01:23 +0000

Too bad that book's contents are not on the net... However, the Electoral returns for 1896 - present are, votes and electoral votes. http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/elections/maps/ Except for two Wilson landslides, the Democrats took all the southern states until 1932 (Hard to do when you're a "segregationist voting for a Republican"), when FDR took nearly everything, slipping slightly in 1940 and 1944. I suppose you've never heard about bias in school textbooks And see here

By: Fuming Mucker

Fuming Mucker — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 04:01:40 +0000

...oh, dear. Frank_D makes the mistake that the name of the party is the character of the party. The one thing left and right can agree on is that neither can believe Abraham Lincoln was a republican.

By: Leroy Brown

Leroy Brown — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:01:53 +0000

MacGruder’s American Govt. 2005 edition, chapter 5, political parties.

Want the page number?

By: JK

JK — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:01:38 +0000

Oliver, what do you mean “if” the South had won?

It did. In 2004, and 2000. United States of Jesusland, and all that. Remember?

JK-Former Citizen of the United States of America

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:01:33 +0000

William McKinley was the republican who fought for bankers and the segregationists.
Evidence, please.

By: nursepam

nursepam — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:01:20 +0000

>But Leroy, you re wrong. Brokeback Mountain will turn you gay.

If only…

By: Leroy Brown

Leroy Brown — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:01:41 +0000

Actually, for all of those who claim history vindicates republicans as the anti-slavery party: The original Republican party WAS anti-slavery, but most historians point to the election of 1896 as the switch over. In that election, William Jennings Bryan was the democrat who fought for farmers and minorities. William McKinley was the republican who fought for bankers and the segregationists. Since then, the two parties have kept these backgrounds.

That’s from a high school government textbook. Reading is Fun-damental.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 01:01:23 +0000

My point that the French and the British would not have allied against the Union is still correct.

Oliver’s attention to the film consists of one point, and one point only: the clever use of red states to to represent the C.S.A. tee – hee

Never mind the fact that the Civil War began because of the anti – slavery stance of the newly – formed Republican Party, and that “Jim Crow” laws returned due to the return to power of the viciously anti – Negro Democrats in return for allowing Hayes to assume the Presidency in 1876.

We all “know that Republicans are racists”, don’t we? the evidence is everywhere — funny it never shows up here.

rainlion: suddenly we’re all just kidding around here? Gimme a break. I didn’t bring it up.

By: Fuming Mucker

Fuming Mucker — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:01:55 +0000

We’ve got a hard enough time teaching our real history… and there’s so much alternative history about it’s no wonder some people get confused.

The Great Trickster must be laughing.

By: Craigo

Craigo — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 20:01:45 +0000

And actually Frank, the Franco-Prussian War was 1870-1871. And the Victorian-era British and French were so damned suspicious of each other that I have a hard time believing that any alliance between the two could have been formed, let alone last for several years. It took a hell of a lot of prodding from Wilhelm before the Entente Cordiale could be formed.