State of emergency: High tension in Virginia as right-wing

Post Reply New Topic

That might undermine their goal of intimidation though.

Plus they have Trump egging them on.
https://www.axios.com/trump-support-vir ... 9a715.html

"Fine folks" when they terrorise people in their neighborhoods

Long thread of pics
https://twitter.com/IwriteOK/status/1219259483509026818?s=20

If the assassination of MLK didn't start a "Race War", then a few nutters toting guns around won't either.

On the topic of MLK and such, wasn't there a big push in favour of gun control by the Conservatives during the civil rights era because they were afraid that black people were arming themselves?

I don't know.  It would not surprise me if a few misguided social conservatives tried something like that.

You may have my dis-integrator ray gun...

... when you can pry it from my cold, dead fingers!!

In 1967 the Black Panthers were an armed militia who “policed the police” in California. They could legally do that. A conservative state legislature proposed a law banning open carry. Claiming 2nd amendment violations 30 armed Panthers walked in to the state legislature guns pointed up to the ceiling before mostly or totally peacefully surrendering to police. This caused a panic with legislatures ducking under the table and Governor Reagan who was meeting with children being whisked out. This is oft cited as the first 2nd amendment protest. The protest gained nationwide publicity and was described by the media as an “invasion”. In reaction the law prohibiting open carry was passed with the support of Governor Reagan and the NRA.

The following year liberal icons Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated and gun control became more of a liberal conservative issue. During the 70s the gun control controversy centered over the best way to fight street crime such as burglaries and muggings, not the 2nd amendment. It would be later that the notion that a giving in one inch to a “gun grabbing” government was the beginning of a slippery slop to fascism became predominant.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 21 Jan 2020, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wrong. And you're racist against brown people.

The war started because Lincoln put a blocade on his own states to enforce the collection of export taxes of fifty % which is insane The first deaths of the civil war were Lincoln's army shooting into a crowd of civilians in Maryland.

Fort Sumpter was a naval fort in the water collecting the new tariffs. It was attacked bc South Carolina had seceded and so should not have to pay the tax as it was no longer part of the United States. They had had a secession movement since the 1830s. It was resolved by reducing the tax. Lincoln returned the tax and then some and SC returned to seceding.

Lincoln was pressured to preserve the union to preserve the taxes as the south only 25% of the population was paying 87% of the taxes and nearly the entirety of it was spent on the north. Mainly New York. Yankees wanted a rail line to California. They were in competition with s line from new Orleans. Their economic dominance depended on being connected first.

Where did I defend slavery?

https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/b ... story.html

Troops fired on anti war demonstrators.

The Missouri Compromise wasn't about ending slavery. It was about assuring the new states being added would not be slaves state so that the north would not have to compete with the southern slaves to build the rail lines. It didn't matter as they would end up using Chinese slaves anyway.

Lincolns problem with slaves wasn't that they were humans enslaved to work for free. It was that they were black and living among whites.

Lincoln Said "Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man"

'There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas"

They were so racist they didn't want black people to even exist in the new states. Lincoln tried to re settle freed slaves outside of the United states.

The Missouri compromise is the classic sh*t they teach in 6th grade. 2/3 of the south didn't have any slaves. You can look at soldiers letters and no one wrote home about wanting preserve slavery esp when they didn't own any themselves. 43% of the union army were foreign immigrants or free black men. Of that 17.5% were Germans or Irish mercenaries.

Last edited by JohnPowell on 21 Jan 2020, 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Next.

I see you're still struggling to comprehend what you read. I never accused you of defending slavery.

Let's try reading it slowly:

You can trot out whatever twisted logic you'd like to defend the south's war to defend the institution of slavery, it won't change what you're defending.

What you've been accused of defending is the War of Southern Treachery, which was fought for the sole purpose of defending the institution of slavery upon which the south's economy was dependent.

You can lie about the south's motives all you like, but it won't alter their own words in their letters of secession.

It was never about brown people. The slaves were a means to an end - money. The South asked for a brief period of time to become financially solvent, but the North knew they did not want the South to have that financial bump. They fought to prevent that from happening, under the auspices of Emancipation. It was another one of the big lies the US fed the world to try and convince them that they weren't as savage as they really were.

The good byproduct of this farce is that slaves were freed. Then, we couldn't go back. But, it was always about money.

I've forgotten a lot of what my grandmother told me. And history has been re-written to suit today's needs. But, nothing has changed since God's time when we were instructed in Amos to let justice flow on, like a river. There is no justice, there is no excuse. There is just money and what people are and are not willing to do for it. We're all gonna have to wait till the next life for the truth and true justice.

Slavery was lucrative for New York because they had a lot of business ties with the south. Cotton was 40 percent of New York City exports and a hidden slave trade thrived. Thus New York was a Democrat “Copperhead” state that favored negotiating a peace treaty with the south. The outbreak of the civil war brought talk of succession. In a city with longstanding racial tension and conflict the Emancipation Proclamation stoked fears of freed slaves taking white jobs. When Lincoln instituted a draft an insurrection second in American history only to the Civil War itself resulted. Blacks and people and institutions associated with the Republican Party were targeted.

And of course southerners loved blacks

There is an irony in your invoking Lincoln's speeches because it gets to the heart of what I have said for a long time that unconcious bias in most of the population against black Americans has developed over centuries which is why even liberals like Lyndon B Johnson revealed serious bias himself when using language to describe black voters. There is nothing surprising here in what Lincoln thought, he was a product of his time.

It does not absolve the south or general Lee and the fundemental reasons they had for wanting to continue indenture and servitude. The economic reliance of southern land owners on slavery has always been the root of their secession ,movement. You are going against historical consensus.