Ted Cruz- 'The Republican Party was founded to defeat Slavery'
Options
indyman87
Members Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭✭
I was a little bit shock when I heard that from Ted Cruz. This was something that I hadn't heard before. I did a internet search and Ted Cruz was right. The Republican Party was form for the specific purpose of defeating slavery because the Whig party couldn't handle it.
In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party meet to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery into the western territories. The Whig Party, which was formed in 1834 to oppose the “tyranny” of President Andrew Jackson, had shown itself incapable of coping with the national crisis over slavery.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party meet to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery into the western territories. The Whig Party, which was formed in 1834 to oppose the “tyranny” of President Andrew Jackson, had shown itself incapable of coping with the national crisis over slavery.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
Comments
-
He probably failed to mention republicans of those days were the liberals and democrats were the conservatives. Atleast that's how the story goes.
-
Yes, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. This is common knowledge and no it wasn't to end slavery but to give the North an advantage in capitalism because the South was basically using free labor (slavery) while the North actually paid workers.
-
Have you never heard of the Dixiecrats?
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Thought this was common knowledge
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Black_Samson wrote: »the same military strategy of using blacks as cannon fodder that was used for the next 200 years.
They don't use blacks as cannon fodder anymore? -
The same strategy that whites use to manipulate blacks into voting Republican and saying that #alllivesmatter and listen to country music to block out white oppression.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Black_Samson wrote: »ghostdog56 wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »the same military strategy of using blacks as cannon fodder that was used for the next 200 years.
They don't use blacks as cannon fodder anymore?
Ha!
They couldnt even ? pat tillman quietly
You think theyd get away with that now?
Biggsst wartime killer past 04 was complacent behavior and fratricide.
I feel you but pat Tillman was famous though, I heard their is a lot of racist rednecks in the military so a ? getting used for target practice wouldn't seem that far fetched to me but you served so ill just take your word for it -
Black_Samson wrote: »Lincoln freeing the slaves was a military strategy.
He needed the bodies cause the north was out manned and didnt know the terrain.
This doesn't make sense as a criticism. The Civil War was fought over slavery. You're basically saying that he only freed slaves to win war that was being fought to free slaves.
I'm not saying Lincoln freed slaves out of the kindness of his hard. There were most definitely political reasons, whether or not he needed the bodies, Lincoln would have freed the slaves. That was the whole point of the war. -
I was a little bit shock when I heard that from Ted Cruz. This was something that I hadn't heard before. I did a internet search and Ted Cruz was right.
are you serious
you really didn't know that?
Smfh. Please be a cac troll....Black_Samson wrote: »Lincoln freeing the slaves was a military strategy.
He needed the bodies cause the north was out manned and didnt know the terrain.
That's ? , you ? don't know ? about history.
peep game
The North had TRIPLE the population of the South. And thats with almost half of the Southern population being slaves. (that's why some still argue the South never really had a chance. North had all the industry too.)
So the military strategy of freeing the South's slaves was to destroy their economy, sow chaos in their society, AND remove the possibility that Great Britain might intervene on their behalf. He didn't do it sooner because there were still 4 slave states in the Union plus he was very aware that many if not most northerners didn't want the slaves freed anyway. The New York Draft Riots were insane (maybe the biggest mass lynching in American history) and it happened in part bcuz the Irish thought freed blacks would move in and steal all their jobs. (sound familiar?)
Lincoln said he would preserve the Union with slavery if thats what it took, ("my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery") but he was an Abolitionist. Abolitionism was a real movement and it was passionate enough that they were cheering John Brown for slitting slaveowners throats. The Civil War began because the South refused to have a Abolitionist president. Lincoln bent over backwards to bribe and/or threaten Congressmen into voting for the 13th Amendment. He did this because he knew another President could reverse the Emancipation Proclamation and he wanted to outlaw slavery permanently, because he believed it was a moral abomination. Hell, most of his advisors were against the Emancipation Proclamation in the first place. These are facts.
Class dismissed, for homework I want you to read chapters 6 through 8 and write a 500 word essay on Frederick Douglas challenging Lincoln over the lack of equal pay for black soldiers.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2013/08/09/when-douglass-met-lincoln/?referer= -
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
Black_Samson wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Lincoln freeing the slaves was a military strategy.
He needed the bodies cause the north was out manned and didnt know the terrain.
This doesn't make sense as a criticism. The Civil War was fought over slavery. You're basically saying that he only freed slaves to win war that was being fought to free slaves.
I'm not saying Lincoln freed slaves out of the kindness of his hard. There were most definitely political reasons, whether or not he needed the bodies, Lincoln would have freed the slaves. That was the whole point of the war.
civil war was about state rights. slavery was a part of this, yes but not wholly
The States' rights to own slaves. That was the central issue they were fighting over. lol You starting to sound like one of those crazy white people down south now. That's the ? they say when they try defend their admiration of the Confederacy and their love for the Confederate flag. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Lincoln freeing the slaves was a military strategy.
He needed the bodies cause
the north was out manned and didnt know the terrain.
This doesn't make sense as a criticism. The Civil War was fought over slavery. You're basically saying that he only freed slaves to win war that was being fought to free slaves.
I'm not saying Lincoln freed slaves out of the kindness of his hard. There were most definitely political reasons, whether or not he needed the bodies, Lincoln would have freed the slaves. That was the whole point of the war.
civil war was about state rights. slavery was a part of this, yes but not wholly
The States' rights to own slaves. That was the central issue they were fighting over. lol You starting to sound like one of those crazy white people down south now. That's the ? they say when they try defend their admiration of the Confederacy and their love for the Confederate flag.
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Lincoln freeing the slaves was a military strategy.
He needed the bodies cause
the north was out manned and didnt know the terrain.
This doesn't make sense as a criticism. The Civil War was fought over slavery. You're basically saying that he only freed slaves to win war that was being fought to free slaves.
I'm not saying Lincoln freed slaves out of the kindness of his hard. There were most definitely political reasons, whether or not he needed the bodies, Lincoln would have freed the slaves. That was the whole point of the war.
civil war was about state rights. slavery was a part of this, yes but not wholly
The States' rights to own slaves. That was the central issue they were fighting over. lol You starting to sound like one of those crazy white people down south now. That's the ? they say when they try defend their admiration of the Confederacy and their love for the Confederate flag.
Ok and?
You realize the Civil War started in 1861 right? The ? had already gone to hell by the time he said that. He was talking about his desire to save the nation not the reasoning behind going to war. Why do think he was talking about freeing or not freeing people in that quote? Because slavery was the issued being fought over. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Lincoln freeing the slaves was a military strategy.
He needed the bodies cause
the north was out manned and didnt know the terrain.
This doesn't make sense as a criticism. The Civil War was fought over slavery. You're basically saying that he only freed slaves to win war that was being fought to free slaves.
I'm not saying Lincoln freed slaves out of the kindness of his hard. There were most definitely political reasons, whether or not he needed the bodies, Lincoln would have freed the slaves. That was the whole point of the war.
civil war was about state rights. slavery was a part of this, yes but not wholly
The States' rights to own slaves. That was the central issue they were fighting over. lol You starting to sound like one of those crazy white people down south now. That's the ? they say when they try defend their admiration of the Confederacy and their love for the Confederate flag.
I look at this as politics. It was 1862. He couldnt come on full revolutionary. He had to get going and get his agenda on course with a divided country and people on different sides. Anyway considering he did fight the war, did sign the E.P. and did die to do it, In dont have a problem with him. He had to play politics to even get in the position to do all that. And giving his life to do it...there were real figures to criticize from that era. And of course the Republicans and Dems switched when the Dems signed civil rights legislation. -
Black_Samson wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »Black_Samson wrote: »Lincoln freeing the slaves was a military strategy.
He needed the bodies cause the north was out manned and didnt know the terrain.
This doesn't make sense as a criticism. The Civil War was fought over slavery. You're basically saying that he only freed slaves to win war that was being fought to free slaves.
I'm not saying Lincoln freed slaves out of the kindness of his hard. There were most definitely political reasons, whether or not he needed the bodies, Lincoln would have freed the slaves. That was the whole point of the war.
civil war was about state rights
Right of the states to maintain slavery. FLAGGED ON SIGHT.
They didn't just want to keep slavery, they wanted to EXPAND it out west. Across the entire continent.
Cacs started dat states rights lie so they could sleep at night and deny the truth about their great-grandpappys being a bunch of ? child-? Nazis with a ? complex. -
Its just kinda ridiculous when people criticize the one President who ended legal slavery and gave his life to do it. What about all the ones before who did nothing and even enslaved people? By comparison and given the times, Lincoln may not have been perfect, but its pretty clear he wasnt the bad guy.
-
NoCompetition wrote: »Its just kinda ridiculous when people criticize the one President who ended legal slavery and gave his life to do it. What about all the ones before who did nothing and even enslaved people? By comparison and given the times, Lincoln may not have been perfect, but its pretty clear he wasnt the bad guy.
lol I never understood that ? either. Whether he did it purely because he cared about the welfare of blacks or not is one thing, but the fact is he did it. It's not like it was easy for him to do it either. People don't fight as hard for something as Lincoln did to abolish slavery if they don't care about it. -
NoCompetition wrote: »Its just kinda ridiculous when people criticize the one President who ended legal slavery and gave his life to do it. What about all the ones before who did nothing and even enslaved people? By comparison and given the times, Lincoln may not have been perfect, but its pretty clear he wasnt the bad guy.
Slavery is still legal in the United States, so long as it is pursuant to a criminal conviction and if it is limited to compulsory uncompensated labor—and indeed that is precisely the system America maintains today.
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Damn shame some of yall still don't realize or know this is why they locking up black people more than anybody else -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »NoCompetition wrote: »Its just kinda ridiculous when people criticize the one President who ended legal slavery and gave his life to do it. What about all the ones before who did nothing and even enslaved people? By comparison and given the times, Lincoln may not have been perfect, but its pretty clear he wasnt the bad guy.
lol I never understood that ? either. Whether he did it purely because he cared about the welfare of blacks or not is one thing, but the fact is he did it. It's not like it was easy for him to do it either. People don't fight as hard for something as Lincoln did to abolish slavery if they don't care about it.
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Illinois this poor white trash went on to become the president of the united states , once in office this white capitalist swine manipulated the freedom of the black man for his own political career until another piece of poor white trash shot him in the head. That's the real story of Abraham Lincoln. -
ghostdog56 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »NoCompetition wrote: »Its just kinda ridiculous when people criticize the one President who ended legal slavery and gave his life to do it. What about all the ones before who did nothing and even enslaved people? By comparison and given the times, Lincoln may not have been perfect, but its pretty clear he wasnt the bad guy.
lol I never understood that ? either. Whether he did it purely because he cared about the welfare of blacks or not is one thing, but the fact is he did it. It's not like it was easy for him to do it either. People don't fight as hard for something as Lincoln did to abolish slavery if they don't care about it.
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Illinois this poor white trash went on to become the president of the united states , once in office this white capitalist swine manipulated the freedom of the black man for his own political career until another piece of poor white trash shot him in the head. That's the real story of Abraham Lincoln.
Hey, you know how to oversimplify issues and demonize a person without providing any logical or factual evidence for your claims. You should go work for FOXNews. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »ghostdog56 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »NoCompetition wrote: »Its just kinda ridiculous when people criticize the one President who ended legal slavery and gave his life to do it. What about all the ones before who did nothing and even enslaved people? By comparison and given the times, Lincoln may not have been perfect, but its pretty clear he wasnt the bad guy.
lol I never understood that ? either. Whether he did it purely because he cared about the welfare of blacks or not is one thing, but the fact is he did it. It's not like it was easy for him to do it either. People don't fight as hard for something as Lincoln did to abolish slavery if they don't care about it.
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Illinois this poor white trash went on to become the president of the united states , once in office this white capitalist swine manipulated the freedom of the black man for his own political career until another piece of poor white trash shot him in the head. That's the real story of Abraham Lincoln.
Hey, you know how to oversimplify issues and demonize a person without providing any logical or factual evidence for your claims. You should go work for FOXNews.
Everything said is the truth but I guess the joke went over your head -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »ghostdog56 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »NoCompetition wrote: »Its just kinda ridiculous when people criticize the one President who ended legal slavery and gave his life to do it. What about all the ones before who did nothing and even enslaved people? By comparison and given the times, Lincoln may not have been perfect, but its pretty clear he wasnt the bad guy.
lol I never understood that ? either. Whether he did it purely because he cared about the welfare of blacks or not is one thing, but the fact is he did it. It's not like it was easy for him to do it either. People don't fight as hard for something as Lincoln did to abolish slavery if they don't care about it.
Abraham Lincoln was born in a log cabin in Illinois this poor white trash went on to become the president of the united states , once in office this white capitalist swine manipulated the freedom of the black man for his own political career until another piece of poor white trash shot him in the head. That's the real story of Abraham Lincoln.
Hey, you know how to oversimplify issues and demonize a person without providing any logical or factual evidence for your claims. You should go work for FOXNews.
More like Beritbart material
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
