What my point was that the Civil War did amplify the racist thoughts of the time period, which is what I said in my last post. Furthermore, my intial response was focused on your attack on the Union, stating that it was more racist than the Confederacy, which was a blatant exaggeration of the levels of racism in the Union.
Are you actually going to use the Civil War as an excuse for rascism is America because that is completely off. There has been vast amounts of rascism all throughout American history and especially devoted to blacks. Yes, I agree that the Civil War amplified the large amount of rasicm that was already present in our society. But in no way was it a key factor for why American's hated black people, no freaking way.
Gross, Juola would say that I do consider the civil war a large factor for anti-black sentiments of the time period. Slavery became the cheif issue of the war in the eyes of most northerners; so naturally blacks were seen as the cause, directly resulting in greater tensions. Also, I was somewhat joking about the anti-stoopid people, and I'm not pro politcal parties. However, I do want to state that renowncing parties doesn't solve much; the idiots will all just band together anyway. Why? Because they're even lazier than any of us, and they don't have the time(or mental capacity) to think. So as long as people thoughts are manipulated(without much resistance), parties will exist.
Jou I think you are quite right about the melee loving I ain't really for all those pulleys and levers and so on. You Franny o Jesse?
Very true some anti-black sentiment came from the war, but a large amount, i think not, unless your idea of large is actually very minute. Before they war there was plenty of anti-black sentiment except there wasn't a large of consentration of black people in the North. And also your point how no one on this site is anti-political parties is very incorrect, maybe because you are so pro-parties that you can't concieve the fact that some people aren't.
How dare you say that Brinkley is proof of your statement because as we all know his "factual book" left out and screwed up large amounts of very important information. And that isn't even debatable. Yes you are correct that the Confederacy's gov't modeled that of the Unions merely because the Confederacy didn't have enough time to create completely new goverment when they were worrying about the Union troops slaughtering the innocent farmers of the land and destroying their precious railroad. But Franson if you look at southern politics up to the Revolutionary War (i say revolution because this war was about revolting against a larger oppressor than England and it wasn't a civil war at all) the South always demonstrated a platform featuring a government that was less involved in the economy and general affairs of the country. And you point how the rich plantation owners ( a very small percent of the south) ran most of the country- um no really, I didn't know that people with money run a country? (sarcasm). And lastly as I started off saying Brinkley wasn't creditable well just to let you know just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it is factual to the least of the extent of the meaning of factual.
I have multiple points, arranged in numerical order: 1) Gross, I'm glad to see you actually got around to bashing the republican party to get more writing done here. 2) A large part of anti-black sentiment in the civil war came directly from the war itself. I recall a certain picture in Brinkley (mostly because there was a crease making the book open to the certain page it was on) depicting a NY city riot, directed at blacks because of the war itself. And also, the few union states that were pro-slavery were in constant battle, and were great sympathizers. 3) I honestly don't think anybody writing for the Atimes is really anti-political parties; I think we're all just anti-stoopid people. 4) Melee Loving, no contest.
From what I remember about the Confederacy, it had just a government almost as large as that of the Union, with large legislative and executive branch nd no judiciary... Which seems largely different from the America you speak of, as it strongly controlled small farms and let the larger plantation-owners do largely as they pleased. .. I will however concede your point about racism and anti-African-American sentiment in the North versus in the South, though I don't see how it fits the topic (thus, hats off to you). Now then. I must be off to verify all that I have said, through the wonders of Brinkley, and/or the Internet. Good day to you, sir.
~Franson
1) I am very glad that you are lazy because who isn't. 2) Oh yeah holding the union together was so very very important considering that the Confederacy was what America was all about. Small town farming and a small and barely exsisting government. I am sure you don't think this but to those people who are feebs and think that the Confederacy was more anti-black than the Union you are totally wrong because A) The Union had slaves in it and B) There was as much anti-black sentiment throughout the Union, and the trend of the North (Union) being just as much anti-black is that today in modern times the KKK is the largest in Wisconsin. So back to you Franson if Lincoln wouldn't have been so bent on retaining the Union, America wouldn't be as powerful today, which would eliminate the subsequent hatred from most of the other countries in the world. And with out the idealogy of America being so powerful than we wouldn't have such an expanism government. 3/5) I spoke incorrectly on the topic of Roosevelt and then your stance on parties. So to Recap...Manos, Hands of fate, no sorry that wasn't what I meant, but your article came completely off as though you had a stick of blind patriotism towards the republicans.
I hadn't read any of your recent articles until the day I posted Um... Gross..., as my computer had been down for ages (six weeks or more, as far as I can remember). Your article was the first I responded to, as it was nearest the top, plus the rest was mostly Dan talking to himself. But now then, let's clarify a few things: 1. Yes, I am a lazy, lazy man. 2. I support Lincoln because he kept the Union together, which is what absolutely had to be done above all else. 3. When have I ever supported Franklin Roosevelt? If I did, I was drunken at the time. 4. If you said "Damn the Republicans" in favor of independent conservativism, I salute you. I was worried that the overwhelming aura of ultraliberalism in Minnesota had swayed your perspective. 5. Why would I think with a brain "prescribed to me by my Republican officials" if I hate political parties?
That's about all for now, but really, you should think before you accuse people of falling in line with a party by their own choice.
~Franson
