I Just Can’t Get The Lack Of Black Republicans

8:41 pm EST February 10th, 2009 | Republicans | 21 Comments

I mean, they’re still calling the Civil War the war of “northern aggresion”! Why would blacks avoid the GOP like the plague and look at their chairman as the fool he is?

I can’t imagine why.

Topic: ,

Related Posts

«
»

21 Responses to “I Just Can’t Get The Lack Of Black Republicans”

  1. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    February 10, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    I can’t wait till the local Right Wing ‘Tards try and defend this.

  2. jr says:
    February 10, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    Hal Turner has a posse in the GOP

  3. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 10, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    When I was a youngster in the South, I heard the phrase “War of Northern Aggression” just a few times. I always thought it was just folks acting the fool.

    I didn’t realize they serious.

  4. Bruce Henry says:
    February 11, 2009 at 8:00 am

    Me too, Quaker. In school the teachers called it “The War Between the States.” We were taught that it wasn’t really about slavery, but the taking away of “states’ rights.” I’m serious.
    From 1961-1965, we “celebrated” the Civil War Centennial. I remember we collected Civil War trading cards like basesball cards. The art was by Frazetta.

  5. I'm a Hick says:
    February 11, 2009 at 9:20 am

    I grew up in Louisiana, and it was always the Civil War.

    Growing up, a favorite great-uncle was Uncle A.L. Came to realize later, of course, that stood for Abraham Lincoln.

  6. Bendra says:
    February 11, 2009 at 9:33 am

    And as for the 3 or so Blacks laying claim to Republican membership, we can charge that off to the low end of the Curve. Thankfully, most of us have healthy attitudes.

  7. Duros62 says:
    February 11, 2009 at 9:36 am

    The art was by Frazetta.

    Those must have been pretty cool. Still Treason in Defense of Slavery, but cool art.

  8. Parthenon says:
    February 11, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    I mean, they’re still calling the Civil War the war of “northern aggresion”!

    B-b-b-but the Repubs are the party of Lincoln!

    Heh.

  9. Sean D. Martin says:
    February 11, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    Bruce Henry: We were taught that it wasn’t really about slavery, but the taking away of “states’ rights.” I’m serious.

    But states rights was a large part of it. Not the sole reason for the conflict, there’s never just one reason for a war, and slavery was certainly the leading issue that caused several states to secede. But an underlying objection was to other states and the federal government telling states what they could do, and the slavery issue was the most visible manifestation of that.

  10. Bruce Henry says:
    February 11, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Yeah, Sean, I know. But the message they wanted us to get was that the South was “defending her way of life” and was forced into war by Northern bullies mad for power, kinda like them outside agitators who were a-comin’ down here stirrin’ up our nigras.

    And Duros, they WERE pretty cool, but very gory. I vividly remember one, about the Battle of the Wilderness, that depicted a Union soldier being attacked by a very large gator.

  11. Bruce Henry says:
    February 11, 2009 at 2:58 pm

    I apologise for saying the art was by Frazetta. I just googled ‘em, and it wasn’t. Kind of in that style, but not nearly as good. Seemed really cool to me as a 10-year old whitetrash boy in 1964.

  12. Zardozinhell says:
    February 11, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    When some clown brings up that “it’s the party of Lincoln”, I remind them that all of those folks in the party at that time are long dead and that Lincoln would not recognize the Republican Party today.

    I doubt that even Goldwater or Nixon would.

  13. Not buying your history white-washing says:
    February 11, 2009 at 7:40 pm

    Oh, God, you stupid people who believe states’ rights had anything to do with it. You’ve never actually read the Confederate constitution, have you?

    Slavery was specifically and explicitly written into said constitution. The right of states to do away with it was specifically and explicitly taken away.

    States’ rights my ass. Go sell that to somebody ignorant.

    Oh, wait.

  14. Porlock Junior says:
    February 12, 2009 at 2:34 am

    Since we all know that it was not really about states’ rights rather than slavery, there are more interesting questions than whether it was totally over slavery rather than s. r. So I think, anyway.

    The one that bemuses me is this: What was the states’ rights issue even supposed to be?? Telling the South how to run itself? Sheeit, does anybody imagine the Congress was about to pass a law outlawing slavery? What kind of idiots are involved here? It took Lincoln two years of war to get around to outlawing slavery in the Treason States! When the North had nominally won and could pass what laws it wanted, even then it didn’t pass an Act of Congress to stop slavery; those moderate law-abiding folks agree that it took a real live Amendment.

    In 1860 when Lincoln won the election, the North was obliged to send escaped slaves back to slavery! Wow, poor poor downtrodden South; I understand there were even people in Northern states who didn’t actively cooperate with that obligation!

    So WTF were they afraid of? A sudden vote by 3/4 of the states to do what all the Southern states hated? Right.

    I’m not kidding here — well, about my sympathy for the downtrodden slave masters, yes I am — and would like to see the pseudo-legitimate states’ rights issues explained.

  15. Bruce says:
    February 12, 2009 at 4:06 am

    What the others said about “states’ rights” as a shibboleth for slavery and slavery alone. The state declarations of secession made this explicitly clear as well. It wasn’t about cotton tariffs or about states’ rights to regulate the price of tea on Tuesdays.

    As for Northern Aggression, the U.S. garrison at Fort Sumter didn’t attack itself; Confederate forces assaulted the U.S. forces with live fire.

  16. Bruce Henry says:
    February 12, 2009 at 8:12 am

    Hey, notbuyingperson:
    Why so angry?
    Only one person here said that state’s rights had a leetle teeny bit to do with it. The rest, not so much. My point, anyway, is that a hundred years later the authorities in the South were still selling the state’s rights snake oil.
    Jump to conclusions much?

  17. Duros62 says:
    February 12, 2009 at 10:19 am

    Nice use of the word shibboleth, there, Bruce. TFJ.

  18. Bruce Henry says:
    February 12, 2009 at 10:53 am

    I know I must be ignernt as hell, but what does TFJ stand for? I see it all the time.

  19. Duros62 says:
    February 12, 2009 at 11:14 am

    Terrorist Fist Jab.

  20. Bruce Henry says:
    February 12, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Don’t leave me hangin’!

  21. GF says:
    February 12, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    RE: I Just Can’t Get The Lack Of Black Republicans

    No sure but I’ll guess :
    Opting to become a “volunteer slave catcher” , just ain’t an easy row to hoe.