The Republican Party has always been racist, and Abraham Lincoln was WAY worse than Trump

From his debate with Stephen Douglas, here's the man who's still called "The Great Emancipator" in his own words:

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

He went on:

I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.

Have you only just realised this?

Lincolm on wanting to free slaves, wished for them to be either repatriated to Africa or leave to South America.

And you did not know this?

He did however change his stance more to equality for blacks, during the Civil War

Nice choice of picking out some comments, do you want to see what he later said?

However, for the time, the Republicans, were far less racist than the Democrats

Thor wrote:Have you only just realised this?

Lincolm on wanting to free slaves, wished for them to be either repatriated to Africa or leave to South America.

And you did not know this?

He did however change his stance more to equality for blacks, during the Civil War

Nice choice of picking out some comments, do you want to see what he later said?

However, for the time, the Republicans, were far less racist than the Democrats

No, I knew it. Just pisses me off that he's treated like a great man, because he was not.

And yes, I know the Democrats were the party of slave owners back then. Now they're not, haven't been for half a century.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:Have you only just realised this?

Lincolm on wanting to free slaves, wished for them to be either repatriated to Africa or leave to South America.

And you did not know this?

He did however change his stance more to equality for blacks, during the Civil War

Nice choice of picking out some comments, do you want to see what he later said?

However, for the time, the Republicans, were far less racist than the Democrats

No, I knew it. Just pisses me off that he's treated like a great man, because he was not.

And yes, I know the Democrats were the party of slave owners back then. Now they're not, haven't been for half a century.

Well he was a great man and like I said his stance during the Civil War.

Which begs to question the context of when he made the views

Or did you not realise that

Try taking into the context for the time, why he might have said them if on campaign

So like I said, its easy to pick out certain things said and not understand why they might have been said

By the time he was President he looked to bring about many changes and his stance had originally changed

He will be remembered as a great man and always should be

How about the Civil Rights Bill Ben?

Who were the majority voters then?

Republican?

So how does that make them to have been always racist?

It does not and again is a lie constantly spun by Democrats

Thor wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:Have you only just realised this?

Lincolm on wanting to free slaves, wished for them to be either repatriated to Africa or leave to South America.

And you did not know this?

He did however change his stance more to equality for blacks, during the Civil War

Nice choice of picking out some comments, do you want to see what he later said?

However, for the time, the Republicans, were far less racist than the Democrats

No, I knew it. Just pisses me off that he's treated like a great man, because he was not.

And yes, I know the Democrats were the party of slave owners back then. Now they're not, haven't been for half a century.

Well he was a great man and like I said his stance during the Civil War.

Which begs to question the context of when he made the views

Or did you not realise that

Try taking into the context for the time, why he might have said them if on campaign

So like I said, its easy to pick out certain things said and not understand why they might have been said

By the time he was President he looked to bring about many changes and his stance had originally changed

He will be remembered as a great man and always should be

If he was, as you seem to be saying, going with the prevailing views of his time, he was a coward not to say how he really felt, was he not?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well he was a great man and like I said his stance during the Civil War.

Which begs to question the context of when he made the views

Or did you not realise that

Try taking into the context for the time, why he might have said them if on campaign

So like I said, its easy to pick out certain things said and not understand why they might have been said

By the time he was President he looked to bring about many changes and his stance had originally changed

He will be remembered as a great man and always should be

If he was, as you seem to be saying, going with the prevailing views of his time, he was a coward not to say how he really felt, was he not?

Well if he had of taken your stance. He would never got voted to be President and slavery would have last far longer

He had to juggle support to be elected and maintain unity during his Presidency, between many different political groups

You do realise this? It means for the time he was willing to work with all sides for the good of the nation

Just look at the people he asigned to work alongside him in Governement

So whatever this plonker is saying in the dabate. He is clearly not very clued up about Lincoln

Thor wrote:How about the Civil Rights Bill Ben?

Who were the majority voters then?

Republican?

So how does that make them to have been always racist?

It does not and again is a lie constantly spun by Democrats

The Republicans were the majority voters. Disaffected Southern Democrats then abandoned the GOP over the next decade and joined the Republican Party, which was using racism as a political wedge by Nixon's campaign in '68.

Thor wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well he was a great man and like I said his stance during the Civil War.

Which begs to question the context of when he made the views

Or did you not realise that

Try taking into the context for the time, why he might have said them if on campaign

So like I said, its easy to pick out certain things said and not understand why they might have been said

By the time he was President he looked to bring about many changes and his stance had originally changed

He will be remembered as a great man and always should be

If he was, as you seem to be saying, going with the prevailing views of his time, he was a coward not to say how he really felt, was he not?

Well if he had of taken your stance. He would never got voted to be President and slavery would have last far longer

He had to juggle support to be elected and maintain unity during his Presidency, between many different political groups

You do realise this? It means for the time he was willing to work with all sides for the good of the nation

Just look at the people he asigned to work alongside him in Governement

So whatever this plonker is saying in the dabate. He is clearly not very clued up about Lincoln

So things like slavery are ended by people who hide their true beliefs? Isn't that lying?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:How about the Civil Rights Bill Ben?

Who were the majority voters then?

Republican?

So how does that make them to have been always racist?

It does not and again is a lie constantly spun by Democrats

The Republicans were the majority voters. Disaffected Southern Democrats then abandoned the GOP over the next decade and joined the Republican Party, which was using racism as a political wedge by Nixon's campaign in '68.

So the view that they have always been racist, is pure fiction

Its not even correct today, as there is no such policies to reverse the civil rights bill

Ok, name the disaffected Southern Democrats?

How many do you think it is?

What does that matter anyway, when it was a majority of republicans that pushed this through and at no time since have they advocated to have this reversed?:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well if he had of taken your stance. He would never got voted to be President and slavery would have last far longer

He had to juggle support to be elected and maintain unity during his Presidency, between many different political groups

You do realise this? It means for the time he was willing to work with all sides for the good of the nation

Just look at the people he asigned to work alongside him in Governement

So whatever this plonker is saying in the dabate. He is clearly not very clued up about Lincoln

So things like slavery are ended by people who hide their true beliefs? Isn't that lying?

For the time, to actually end slavery?

Of course

Why on earth do you think people like Frederick Doglas worked together with Lincoln on obtaining more equality?

You have to understand at the time, it was not simple Republicans and Democrats. In fact the Republicans had only been around for a short time. There were many different factions, of which was able to unite many different groups including radicals. To form a Government.

Thor wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:How about the Civil Rights Bill Ben?

Who were the majority voters then?

Republican?

So how does that make them to have been always racist?

It does not and again is a lie constantly spun by Democrats

The Republicans were the majority voters. Disaffected Southern Democrats then abandoned the GOP over the next decade and joined the Republican Party, which was using racism as a political wedge by Nixon's campaign in '68.

So the view that they have always been racist, is pure fiction

Its not even correct today, as there is no such policies to reverse the civil rights bill

Ok, name the disaffected Southern Democrats?

How many do you think it is?

What does that matter anyway, when it was a majority of republicans that pushed this through and at no time since have they advocated to have this reversed?:

Actually they have. Rand Paul notoriously got into trouble saying that portions of the Civil Right Act should be scrapped, such as the part that forbade business owners from running "white only" establishments, and that was just a few years ago. He's not the only one, either.

The Democrats who fled the GOP after civil rights are known as Dixiecrats, and you can look them up; there was a good number.

The telling part is how readily the GOP re-embraced racism, just a few years after they helped push through the Civil Rights Act.

I can trot out the "Southern Strategy" quote from '71 or '72 again if you'd like.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:
No, I knew it. Just pisses me off that he's treated like a great man, because he was not.

And yes, I know the Democrats were the party of slave owners back then. Now they're not, haven't been for half a century.

But you are forgetting one important ingredient: the times. Lincoln had to tread lightly because he had the same problem we have today...the issue of slavery was dividing the country. How many people today, in the face of Charlottesville and Trump, and the white nationalist racism, are urging that we tolerate it for the sake of "unity"? That's the same milieu that Lincoln was in in the 1860's.

Writings and speech's were much more outspoken on the "broken promise of equality" in Washington's day, what with Hamilton and Jay arguing against the Virginians, Jefferson and Madison.

Just a bit more to peruse:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/texas-republicans-call-repealing-the-voting-rights-act

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:


So the view that they have always been racist, is pure fiction

Its not even correct today, as there is no such policies to reverse the civil rights bill

Ok, name the disaffected Southern Democrats?

How many do you think it is?

What does that matter anyway, when it was a majority of republicans that pushed this through and at no time since have they advocated to have this reversed?:

Actually they have. Rand Paul notoriously got into trouble saying that portions of the Civil Right Act should be scrapped, such as the part that forbade business owners from running "white only" establishments, and that was just a few years ago. He's not the only one, either.

The Democrats who fled the GOP after civil rights are known as Dixiecrats, and you can look them up; there was a good number.

The telling part is how readily the GOP re-embraced racism, just a few years after they helped push through the Civil Rights Act.

I can trot out the "Southern Strategy" quote from '71 or '72 again if you'd like.

So to you one person, then equates to the whole party being racist?

Come again?

So one person who was not backed by the party

Ben, I am very well versed on history and knew you could not name them

The Southern strategy?

We both know that is a Democratic spin

thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy

I just wish you would make up your mind on Lincoln. Before you argued he was like a Democrat for today

Now youa re saying he is a racist Republican

Original Quill wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:
No, I knew it. Just pisses me off that he's treated like a great man, because he was not.

And yes, I know the Democrats were the party of slave owners back then. Now they're not, haven't been for half a century.

But you are forgetting one important ingredient: the times.  Lincoln had to tread lightly because he had the same problem we have today...the issue of slavery was dividing the country.  How many people today, in the face of Charlottesville and Trump, and the white nationalist racism, are urging that we tolerate it for the sake of "unity"?  That's the same milieu that Lincoln was in in the 1860's.

Writings and speech's were much more outspoken on the "broken promise of equality" in Washington's day, what with Hamilton and Jay arguing against the Virginians, Jefferson and Madison.

And my point remains - if Lincoln somehow "secretly" believed in equality of blacks and whites, yet said a bunch of shit about he'd never tolerate whites marrying blacks, he was lying through his teeth and shouldn't be celebrated as a hero.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Just a bit more to peruse:

The young turks?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But you are forgetting one important ingredient: the times.  Lincoln had to tread lightly because he had the same problem we have today...the issue of slavery was dividing the country.  How many people today, in the face of Charlottesville and Trump, and the white nationalist racism, are urging that we tolerate it for the sake of "unity"?  That's the same milieu that Lincoln was in in the 1860's.

Writings and speech's were much more outspoken on the "broken promise of equality" in Washington's day, what with Hamilton and Jay arguing against the Virginians, Jefferson and Madison.

And my point remains - if Lincoln somehow "secretly" believed in equality of blacks and whites, yet said a bunch of shit about he'd never tolerate whites marrying blacks, he was lying through his teeth and shouldn't be celebrated as a hero.

Can you use your brain for once?

What did you not graps about the many different factions that he tried to win over to get elected. At a time when slavery was still legal?

He made more progressive policies than many Presidents in history and this is what you fail to grasp for the time

I suppose next you will be asking to smash down his statues

No wonder your country is going to shit, if you cannot grasp the context for the time

I mean you seem to think he was about to propose the civil rights act

How would that have ever passed for the time?

Thor wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Just a bit more to peruse:

The young turks?

How about Nixon strategist spelling it all out -- actual audio of his actual voice?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Thor wrote:


The young turks?

How about Nixon strategist spelling it all out -- actual audio of his actual voice?

Now that is clutching at straws

How I first of all to know who's voice that is?

Seriously

Second that does not even promote a strategy and its not backed by a single document. As why is it the Democrats won many seats in the south at the time and for many years after?

Third, come, on you did not watch the previous video, because we both know the Southern strategy is a complete myth

Nah, you just want to think it's a myth because you want to think Republicans uniformly rejected racism. But white supremacism has always been part of the GOP. Look at David Duke, for fuck's sake!

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Nah, you just want to think it's a myth because you want to think Republicans uniformly rejected racism. But white supremacism has always been part of the GOP. Look at David Duke, for fuck's sake!

So based on your poor history

After the Civil rights bill, only one Democrat joined the Republican Party

Lie number one by you

You claimed there was a strategy and yet the Democrats in 1968 and 1976 won the vast majority of the votes in the south

Lie number two by you

The Republcians never had a majority in the south until 1994

I suggest you stop reading bullshit and research what you know nothing about Ben

Thor wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:Nah, you just want to think it's a myth because you want to think Republicans uniformly rejected racism. But white supremacism has always been part of the GOP. Look at David Duke, for fuck's sake!

So based on your poor history

After the Civil rights bill, only one Democrat joined the Republican Party

Lie number one by you

You claimed there was a strategy and yet the Democrats in 1968 and 1976 won the vast majority of the votes in the south

Lie number two by you

The Republcians never had a majority in the south until 1994

I suggest you stop reading bullshit and research what you know nothing about Ben

Sources I see actually say 3. I remember Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms off the top of my head.

Others changed their views, like Robert Byrd, or quit.

David Duke quite notoriously went from Democrat to Republican and came in third place in one of his primaries.

Trump supporters express racism all the time. Democrats elected Obama twice.

You have no real argument, so you resort to whether I'm historically accurate in every statement.

You haven't refuted the widely reported Lee Atwater quote, and you know I can find more supporting that Republican strategy.

Just because you can find some Republicans who aren't racist doesn't mean the party hasn't stood for racism over the majority of its history.

White Southerners "are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes," said Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican.

"I have the greatest affection for [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like. The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality," said Nixon.

Then there's this quote from Reagan on the campaign trail:

"There’s a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veterans’ benefits on four nonexistent deceased husbands. She’s got Medicaid, is getting food stamps and welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000."

Perfect, textbook example of what Atwater was talking about. He never said the woman's race, but his audience knew she was black, because part and parcel of the Southern Strategy was that you didn't explicitly say anything about race; you touched on subjects like welfare, drugs and "law and order," which white voters associated mainly with blacks (and during the 60s and 70s, counterculture whites as well).

Oh, and this article lays out the Southern Strategy in exquisite detail: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But you are forgetting one important ingredient: the times.  Lincoln had to tread lightly because he had the same problem we have today...the issue of slavery was dividing the country.  How many people today, in the face of Charlottesville and Trump, and the white nationalist racism, are urging that we tolerate it for the sake of "unity"?  That's the same milieu that Lincoln was in in the 1860's.

Writings and speech's were much more outspoken on the "broken promise of equality" in Washington's day, what with Hamilton and Jay arguing against the Virginians, Jefferson and Madison.

And my point remains - if Lincoln somehow "secretly" believed in equality of blacks and whites, yet said a bunch of shit about he'd never tolerate whites marrying blacks, he was lying through his teeth and shouldn't be celebrated as a hero.

Why do you claim that Lincoln "secretly" believed that?  Lincoln was a politician.  He was putting on a face.  He needed votes.

The Lincoln/Douglas debates were stump speeches (written down for newpapers) in the Illinois Senate race of 1858, and "Lincoln's rise to power was inextricably linked to the increasing intensity of the antislavery cause." Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005) p. 9.  "Support for that day for the black vote, black presence on juries, and black officeholding was startlingly radical for a mainstream politician.  Ibid, p 133.[/i]

What do politicians do but slavishly follow the "PC" of the day.  The "PC" of the day in the 1850‘s-60's was 'unity'...they even called one side of the fight, "The Union".  It's the same "PC" going around today, where the same issues prevail--white supremacy = slavery; state's rights--and look what is happening.  The countervailing "PC" is "unity".

If, as a politician, you don't pretend to follow the "PC" of the day, you get crucified.  Look what happens to me, today, when I suggest disunity, and promote the Pacific States of America.  All sorts of people accuse me of being an obstructionist, an elitist, and against the right order of things.  But I'm not a politician and I can stand up to it.  If I were dependent on votes, it would be a different story.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Sources I see actually say 3. I remember Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms off the top of my head.

Others changed their views, like Robert Byrd, or quit.

David Duke quite notoriously went from Democrat to Republican and came in third place in one of his primaries.

Trump supporters express racism all the time. Democrats elected Obama twice.

You have no real argument, so you resort to whether I'm historically accurate in every statement.

You haven't refuted the widely reported Lee Atwater quote, and you know I can find more supporting that Republican strategy.

Just because you can find some Republicans who aren't racist doesn't mean the party hasn't stood for racism over the majority of its history.

White Southerners "are not bad people. All they are concerned about is to see that their sweet little girls are not required to sit in school alongside some big overgrown Negroes," said Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican.

"I have the greatest affection for [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like. The Jews are just a very aggressive and abrasive and obnoxious personality," said Nixon.

Then there's this quote from Reagan on the campaign trail:

"There’s a woman in Chicago. She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veterans’ benefits on four nonexistent deceased husbands. She’s got Medicaid, is getting food stamps and welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income alone is over $150,000."

Perfect, textbook example of what Atwater was talking about. He never said the woman's race, but his audience knew she was black, because part and parcel of the Southern Strategy was that you didn't explicitly say anything about race; you touched on subjects like welfare, drugs and "law and order," which white voters associated mainly with blacks (and during the 60s and 70s, counterculture whites as well).

1) We are talking about Democrats that voted on the Bill. Only one moved to the Republicans

So you lied and are making the worst revisionist history in order to paint a false narative onto the Republicans

That is called Trump tactics

2) So you have not explain why again in the Southern states they remained Democrat for many years until 1994? Only then did the become a majority to Republicans.

3) Then explain why they have also voted for Black Republicans in the South?

You see there is very little in anything you said that is correct

I really cannot abide with biased lefties that distory history and I am not even a Republican supporter

Hence I cannot be accused of bias

So why did Dwight, send in the army to help stop segregation again at a time when Democrats wanted this to continue in the south.

Again you use phrases and ignore his progression and actions ended the segregation in the South

Is this going to be the bases for your argument, on what sometimes people have said?

I mean nothing backs your claims up, as again there was no strategy and it clearly never worked did it, being as the republicans never had a majority for another 20 years.

You see this is all you can do is use quotes on things people said

If someone did that with the Quran and islam, what would be your argument in defense?

Sixty years ago, with its historic ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed segregation in public schools. President Dwight D. Eisenhower didn’t sound too happy about that.

“The Supreme Court has spoken and I am sworn to uphold the constitutional processes in this country; and I will obey,” Eisenhower said shortly after the ruling.

Despite his own Justice Department having sought this ruling, to most observers, it didn’t sound like Ike was much of a fan. And to the South, it signaled that the popular president and war hero wasn’t ready to fight for integration.

Ike’s frosty response to Brown has always cast a shadow over the progress he made on civil rights. After all, he worked to desegregate the nation’s capital and fulfilled his predecessor Harry Truman’s order to desegregate the military.

The liberal federal judges Eisenhower appointed would serve as a bulwark against the segregationists later appointed by President John F. Kennedy, who was beholden to southern senators from his party. But as a strong believer in federalism, Ike was reluctant to use federal power to intervene on behalf of civil rights in the states, and his civil rights accomplishments were ultimately dwarfed by another successor, Lyndon Johnson, who during the 1950s served as Ike’s nemesis in the Senate as Eisenhower sought the first civil rights bills since Reconstruction. Tepid measures, they would nevertheless pave the way for Johnson, who as president would defy his own racist history and sign civil rights laws much broader than those Eisenhower had proposed.

In two terms as president, Eisenhower combined what was, at the time, the strongest record on civil rights since Reconstruction with a baffling rhetorical deference to white supremacists and a cold relationship with civil rights leaders.

“He made substantial progress in the area of civil rights, more than any other individual president between Lincoln and Johnson,” said Michael Mayer, a history professor at the University of Montana. “But compared to Johnson? No.”

Eisenhower opposed discrimination but seemed to sympathize far more with the white southerners whose lives would be disrupted by the end of Jim Crow than blacks dwelling under its boot heel. He was an incrementalist skeptical of federal power who often repeated the ideological belief that laws could not shape culture, despite pursuing laws that would extend–albeit modestly compared to Johnson-era efforts–federal authority to protect Americans’ civil rights. Eisenhower would say, “You cannot change people’s hearts merely by laws.”

msnbc.com/msnbc/why-dont-we-ike-civil-rights

Does that match the quote BY Ben, to the great work Eisenhower did for Civil Rights?

This is why the left are the biggest liars and distorters of history