Why did Little River County, AR swung so hard to the Republicans in 2008?

[R.P. McM]

I'm sure they had very logical reasons for shifting heavily towards the Republican Party in the midst of a financial crisis and an environment where Obama was winning by 7 points in the national popular vote. It couldn't POSSIBLY be racism playing a factor, nope, I'm sure they would have voted for Alan Keyes against a white Democrat because of gay marriage or whatever.

Why do people feel a need to pick one reason constantly and lump everyone together?

Because 90% of your party supports Trump, and you aren't the One True Scotsman, hombre.

Sure, I bet there were some racist Democrats who refused to support a Black nominee ... I'm also sure a non-insignificant number of Yellow Dogs continued to die since 2004 ... I'm also sure some conservative-leaning independents who voted for Kerry because their grandpappy was a Democrat saw Obama's comments about "clinging to guns" as pretty damn insulting and said they'd never vote for another Democrat again

What about Mitt Romney's comments about guns? Or Donald Trump's? This BS is just getting too ludicrous to even entertain. Yes, a sizable subset of the Republican base is racist, including an immense number of white Southerners. Sorry, deal with it.

There are very *unbecoming* elements in a "sizable subset" of the Democratic base, rife with sexism, crime and what some incredibly insecure and angry people might call "trashy" attributes.  They just happen to be non-White

There we go. Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

Republicans are just supposed to sit back and shut up as you literally dehumanize their voters, but the point is good people don't judge entire groups of people by their anecdotal experiences and stereotype them all.

I judge people by their behavior. So when Republicans elect a racist sexual predator and then stand by him as he praises Nazis, cages children, and incites mob violence, yeah, I'm going to form some pretty harsh judgments. This is an inevitable consequence of voting for and continuing to support Trump. So you need to stop crying when I point out how terrible this vile creature is making y'all look, and maybe try to persuade some of your fellow partisans to rediscover a little decency and humanity.

I'm sure you'll turn into a decent enough poster when you age, but have some respect for the site, at least.  We don't need bratty little teenage partisans filling threads with heated projections about "THE OTHER PARTY."  This site isn't about that.  Take that BS to a forum dedicated to being a Democratic circle jerk; there are plenty.  There are several liberal, Democratic posters here who might even share your razor sharp views, but notice they carry themselves better ... we all go through a shltposting phase on this site, but yours is especially loud.  This site is not going to be a very effective platform to convince everyone that you are a better person - by being morally superior, educationally superior, more cosmopolitan or whatever other accolade you think is bestowed upon anyone who rejects the Republican Party - than anyone with differing views, so I would gain some nuance, newbie.

So you're saying you're ready to elect me president?! I thank you for your support, comrade! Hahahaha! Yeah, let's be honest, if I were sitting in the Oval Office as a member of your party, you'd have absolutely no problem with my rhetoric. Personally, I'd demand a little more of the president than a pseudonymous internet poster, but I'm not a Republican, obviously. Now, truth be told, I used to be quite a bit more measured. But you folks have so eagerly jettisoned your purported values in favor of authoritarianism and white supremacy, I find myself outraged and a bit fearful. If Trump can so easily persuade y'all to embrace an obvious violation of the Constitution under the pretense of a phony emergency, what else is he capable of making you do? If he can sh!+ on the graves of war heroes and side with Vladimir Putin over American intelligence agencies, what's the limit to the treachery and depravity? It's for these reasons that I have trouble speaking of the current political situation in detached, clinical tones. Increasingly, I view the GOP as a threat to democracy and the rule of law, and my rhetoric reflects that level of alarm.      

[RINO Tom]

Lol, okay.  You are talking to someone who voted for Hillary Clinton and quite regularly condemns Donald Trump, so ... not sure what you're babbling about, honestly.

[R.P. McM]

Lol, okay.  You are talking to someone who voted for Hillary Clinton and quite regularly condemns Donald Trump, so ... not sure what you're babbling about, honestly.

See, the problem here is that I don't know you from Adam. But maybe you are the One True Scotsman. My mother's partner, a man I'm quite close with (fishing buddy), is in the same boat (). So I recognize that you folks exist, and I apologize for lumping you in with the deplorables. But you have to understand, this is a predictable consequence of associating yourself with an individual/group currently engaged in some rather odious behavior. Electing the nation's most prominent birther following the nation's first non-white president was a terrible move for a party often accused of harboring racial animus. For many if not most Democrats, the debate is now over, the question is settled. Consequently, you're going to have to contend with a widespread perception that the GOP is crawling with bigots. Naturally, you're going to find some of that suspicion cast upon yourself. But as generalizations go, one based on the behavior/beliefs of 9/10^ths of a voluntary group is hardly unfair. If there's anyone you should be upset with, it's your fellow partisans.    

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

I know a large segment of this forum likes to constantly spout the tiresome narrative of "racist uneducated southern hicks in the mountains and hills" without bringing forth any real evidence to justify it.

On the contrary, based off the data from Harvard's Project Implicit it appears that whites in West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky show about as much bias as whites in New York and Maryland and less than whites in Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware. Now the methodology behind the creation of this map wasn't perfect, however, the results do seem rather sound and doesn't give credit to the widely held belief that whites in Appalachia and Arkansas are horribly racist people relative to the US as a whole.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/jaxt/blogposts/piblogpost005.html

[RINO Tom]

^ That certainly won't be taken seriously here, as Trump's best state is one of the least racially biased in the country.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

^ That certainly won't be taken seriously here, as Trump's best state is one of the least racially biased in the country.

Haha indeed! The #woke, enlightened, educated, tolerant and progressive people of Massachusetts are more racially biased than the despicable, uneducated, bumpkin ranchers of Wyoming? How is this possible?

[lfromnj]

I know a large segment of this forum likes to constantly spout the tiresome narrative of "racist uneducated southern hicks in the mountains and hills" without bringing forth any real evidence to justify it.

On the contrary, based off the data from Harvard's Project Implicit it appears that whites in West Virginia, Arkansas and Kentucky show about as much bias as whites in New York and Maryland and less than whites in Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware. Now the methodology behind the creation of this map wasn't perfect, however, the results do seem rather sound and doesn't give credit to the widely held belief that whites in Appalachia and Arkansas are horribly racist people relative to the US as a whole.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/user/jaxt/blogposts/piblogpost005.html

Just wondering do you know what the IAT exam is? I personally don't find it very accurate except at a very reflex level. TBH most of it comes with upbringing. Most of the bias can be explained away by a simple correlation of % of black people in a state.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

John Kerry was more socially liberal than Obama

How?

(approximate and possibly incomplete) List of crimes Kerry supported Capital Punishment for:

Treason

(approximate and possibly incomplete) List of crimes Obama supported Capital Punishment for:

Treason
Murder
Child Rape (outlawed by the 2008 SCOTUS decision in Kennedy vs Louisiana)
Child Kidnapping (outlawed by the 2008 SCOTUS decision in Kennedy vs Louisiana)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states. Sherman loved the South and had lived there prior to the war, and when it was over gave such generous peace terms that ANDREW JOHNSON was appalled. Grant for all the casualties he suffered and reputation as a butcher hated bloodshed and couldn't stomach the sight of it. This is why he insisted that his meat be thoroughly cooked.


Furthermore, depending on location, the poor white trash were some of the more pro-union elements while the rich, high society Plantation Owners and their enablers were very often the driving forces behind secession in a given state. This dynamic is especially at play in the border states.

[R.P. McM]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states.

Nope. Lincoln came from a family of MA puritans — Yankees — who migrated westward. Try again.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states.

Nope. Lincoln came from a family of MA puritans — Yankees — who migrated westward. Try again.

His base did yes, but he did not.

He was born in Kentucky (The definition of a border state) and his family was struggling so they moved to Indiana and then to Illinois.

What part of that is incorrect?

[R.P. McM]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states.

Nope. Lincoln came from a family of MA puritans — Yankees — who migrated westward. Try again.

His base did yes, but he did not.

He was born in Kentucky (The definition of a border state) and his family was struggling so they moved to Indiana and then to Illinois.

What part of that is incorrect?

I think there's a big difference between the values of the Lincoln family and the Calhoun family, for instance. Being poor doesn't make you 'white trash' — it's more a belligerent, anti-intellectual attitude. It's akin to poor white Southerners in the early-20th century vs. equally poor immigrant Jews. Obviously, one group succeeded, the other continues to bitch and whine and leech and scapegoat, despite holding considerable political power (unlike non-whites). Lincoln was an autodidact, but being a moron — e.g., Trump — is an admirable character trait for many white evangelicals. So Lincoln doesn't belong to WV or KY, he belongs to MA and IL.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states.

Nope. Lincoln came from a family of MA puritans — Yankees — who migrated westward. Try again.

His base did yes, but he did not.

He was born in Kentucky (The definition of a border state) and his family was struggling so they moved to Indiana and then to Illinois.

What part of that is incorrect?

I think there's a big difference between the values of the Lincoln family and the Calhoun family, for instance. Being poor doesn't make you 'white trash' — it's more a belligerent, anti-intellectual attitude. It's akin to poor white Southerners in the early-20th century vs. equally poor immigrant Jews. Obviously, one group succeeded, the other continues to bitch and whine and leech and scapegoat, despite holding considerable political power (unlike non-whites). Lincoln was an autodidact, but being a moron — e.g., Trump — is an admirable character trait for many white evangelicals. So Lincoln doesn't belong to WV or KY, he belongs to MA and IL.

Calhoun was from the Deep South not the border states and there was very different ethos between the Mountain, Hill and Border state poor whites and the Planter dominated Deep South. This is overlooked now but there is a long history of them being opposed to each other. For instance strong Mountain Republicanism while the Deep South was the Solid South. Also the border states voted for Clinton while the Deep South went to Dole, and so on. Mountain counties trended towards LBJ because Goldwater pandered too much to the Deep South and blackbelt/urban/low country whites. This is discussed in Kevin Phillips, "The Emerging Republican Majority" from 1969.

What you said was factually inaccurate on its face. Regardless of any concept of some irrelevant assessment of mentality and temperament, Lincoln's family was one of poor white farmers from the hill country of Kentucky, a border state.

To add further to this it should be remembered that Lincoln was not a base candidate in 1860, but a moderate who was thought to be more capable of winning the election and this is precisely because he was not an Yankee abolitionist like Seward, but was instead a butternut region moderate whose family went North, partially to avoid having to compete with slave labor.

Finally to further drive a nail into the coffin of the point I was originally responding to, Lincoln's moderate temperament meant that Lincoln was rather gentle in his plans to deal with the defeated South. His words to Grant were "Let them up easy".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Remember also that the reasonable Yankee mindset you are holding up some kind of historical paragons of virtue were leading the drive to exterminate Native Americans, discriminating against the Irish and opposing further immigration and trying to ban booze and Christmas as Roman Catholic corruption of the pure Calvinist soul.

I made a very long post about this a few months ago, but there is this desire on the left to latch onto Yankees, white wash their checkered past and hold them up as the good guys compared to the evil, backwards Southerners.

Now lets look at the dirty laundry.  

Part I: Immigrants and Religion:

These supposed egalitarian Yankees, were aghast by Catholicism, their opposition to the Church of England was because it was "too Catholic" in its trappings as much as anger at hierarchical control and they disdained such influences. So what happens when a bunch of Irish Catholics start arriving by the boatload in Boston. 1) You discriminate like crap against them and 2) you move to Michigan/Illinois/Oregon.

 For the ones that remain, you try to use compulsory public education to teach them the King James Bible and then you try to keep them from voting (And you thought the South were the only ones who believed in restricted voting rights). Early Federalists and Whigs (which yes included Plantation Owners in the South as well) were very much against expanded voting favoring land and wealth requirements, because it would mean ceding power and control to those low class and later largely Catholic immigrants. Once the immigrants started to be exclusively Catholic, then the class divide among Yankees evaporated and both joined forces in a political alignment defined by religious identity. Later on they would use rivalries for jobs and political influence among more recent immigrant groups as a wedge against the Irish political machines.

This dynamic lasted for over 100 years until the Great Depression and the Greatest Generation swamped out the WASP-Yankee led political machines in the cities of the North and even whole states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Anti-Ethnic politics also helped to galvanize support for Prohibition as well, which united Calvinists both North and South in support in the 1920's. Just as the same two groups (Northern Yankees and Southern Plantation Society) locked arms to pass the Immigration laws in the 1920's, as well.

Abolitionism: Yankee culture has one redeeming quality that sustains it about most everything else and it is the reason why modern day Progressives will engage in any amount of historical revisionism to latch onto the group while shirking off any traces of their other antecedents (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson say hello). Groups that supported abolitionism did so for many different reasons over the course of the period leading up to the Civil War, but it should be noted that it was not because of widespread egalitarianism, it was for most of them, again because of theology. Some believed that slavery ran contrary to God's will, for others it was simply more practical, slavery was an impediment to spreading the gospel to the enslaved peoples. Contained within this was extreme levels of 19th century cultural Imperialism and white supremacy that would make most on the left sick. But history is full of good things being done by a mixed group of people, some of whom are doing so for the wrong reasons.

But please go on about how Yankee Republicans of Lincoln's era were so much different than the Southern Republicans of today.

[darklordoftech]

Remember also that the reasonable Yankee mindset you are holding up some kind of historical paragons of virtue were leading the drive to exterminate Native Americans, discriminating against the Irish and opposing further immigration and trying to ban booze and Christmas as Roman Catholic corruption of the pure Calvinist soul.

I made a very long post about this a few months ago, but there is this desire on the left to latch onto Yankees, white wash their checkered past and hold them up as the good guys compared to the evil, backwards Southerners.

Now lets look at the dirty laundry.  

Part I: Immigrants and Religion:

These supposed egalitarian Yankees, were aghast by Catholicism, their opposition to the Church of England was because it was "too Catholic" in its trappings as much as anger at hierarchical control and they disdained such influences. So what happens when a bunch of Irish Catholics start arriving by the boatload in Boston. 1) You discriminate like crap against them and 2) you move to Michigan/Illinois/Oregon.

 For the ones that remain, you try to use compulsory public education to teach them the King James Bible and then you try to keep them from voting (And you thought the South were the only ones who believed in restricted voting rights). Early Federalists and Whigs (which yes included Plantation Owners in the South as well) were very much against expanded voting favoring land and wealth requirements, because it would mean ceding power and control to those low class and later largely Catholic immigrants. Once the immigrants started to be exclusively Catholic, then the class divide among Yankees evaporated and both joined forces in a political alignment defined by religious identity. Later on they would use rivalries for jobs and political influence among more recent immigrant groups as a wedge against the Irish political machines.

This dynamic lasted for over 100 years until the Great Depression and the Greatest Generation swamped out the WASP-Yankee led political machines in the cities of the North and even whole states like Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Anti-Ethnic politics also helped to galvanize support for Prohibition as well, which united Calvinists both North and South in support in the 1920's. Just as the same two groups (Northern Yankees and Southern Plantation Society) locked arms to pass the Immigration laws in the 1920's, as well.

Abolitionism: Yankee culture has one redeeming quality that sustains it about most everything else and it is the reason why modern day Progressives will engage in any amount of historical revisionism to latch onto the group while shirking off any traces of their other antecedents (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson say hello). Groups that supported abolitionism did so for many different reasons over the course of the period leading up to the Civil War, but it should be noted that it was not because of widespread egalitarianism, it was for most of them, again because of theology. Some believed that slavery ran contrary to God's will, for others it was simply more practical, slavery was an impediment to spreading the gospel to the enslaved peoples. Contained within this was extreme levels of 19th century cultural Imperialism and white supremacy that would make most on the left sick. But history is full of good things being done by a mixed group of people, some of whom are doing so for the wrong reasons.

But please go on about how Yankee Republicans of Lincoln's era were so much different than the Southern Republicans of today.

However, I think most would agree that prohibition isn’t comparable to slavery, and most people today see compulsory education as a good thing. Prohibition is often seen as well-intentioned uptightness while slavery is universally seen as evil.

[Intell]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states.

Nope. Lincoln came from a family of MA puritans — Yankees — who migrated westward. Try again.

His base did yes, but he did not.

He was born in Kentucky (The definition of a border state) and his family was struggling so they moved to Indiana and then to Illinois.

What part of that is incorrect?

I think there's a big difference between the values of the Lincoln family and the Calhoun family, for instance. Being poor doesn't make you 'white trash' — it's more a belligerent, anti-intellectual attitude. It's akin to poor white Southerners in the early-20th century vs. equally poor immigrant Jews. Obviously, one group succeeded, the other continues to bitch and whine and leech and scapegoat, despite holding considerable political power (unlike non-whites). Lincoln was an autodidact, but being a moron — e.g., Trump — is an admirable character trait for many white evangelicals. So Lincoln doesn't belong to WV or KY, he belongs to MA and IL.

Calhoun was from the Deep South not the border states and there was very different ethos between the Mountain, Hill and Border state poor whites and the Planter dominated Deep South. This is overlooked now but there is a long history of them being opposed to each other. For instance strong Mountain Republicanism while the Deep South was the Solid South. Also the border states voted for Clinton while the Deep South went to Dole, and so on. Mountain counties trended towards LBJ because Goldwater pandered too much to the Deep South and blackbelt/urban/low country whites. This is discussed in Kevin Phillips, "The Emerging Republican Majority" from 1969.

These days, there's very little difference between white trash from MS and TN. At one point, there may have been, but nowadays, they're all just uneducated white bigots.

What you said was factually inaccurate on its face. Regardless of any concept of some irrelevant assessment of mentality and temperament, Lincoln's family was one of poor white farmers from the hill country of Kentucky, a border state.

Nope. It's 100% accurate. If my family moved to AL, we wouldn't all suddenly become racist, evangelical, anti-intellectual white trash. We'd feed the animals at the petting zoo, but we wouldn't become them.

Finally to further drive a nail into the coffin of the point I was originally responding to, Lincoln's moderate temperament meant that Lincoln was rather gentle in his plans to deal with the defeated South. His words to Grant were "Let them up easy".

Pfffft. Oh, yes, the South regarded Lincoln as a moderate. He was so moderate, they organized a racist insurrection before he even assumed office. So stupid. No, Lincoln was HATED by the same Southern white conservatives who hated the Civil Rights movement and Barack Obama.

BTW: Lincoln made a mistake. He should've exterminated Southern whites. To paraphrase Trent Lott, we wouldn't have had all of these problems all of these years.

lol dude calm down.

[R.P. McM]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states.

Nope. Lincoln came from a family of MA puritans — Yankees — who migrated westward. Try again.

His base did yes, but he did not.

He was born in Kentucky (The definition of a border state) and his family was struggling so they moved to Indiana and then to Illinois.

What part of that is incorrect?

I think there's a big difference between the values of the Lincoln family and the Calhoun family, for instance. Being poor doesn't make you 'white trash' — it's more a belligerent, anti-intellectual attitude. It's akin to poor white Southerners in the early-20th century vs. equally poor immigrant Jews. Obviously, one group succeeded, the other continues to bitch and whine and leech and scapegoat, despite holding considerable political power (unlike non-whites). Lincoln was an autodidact, but being a moron — e.g., Trump — is an admirable character trait for many white evangelicals. So Lincoln doesn't belong to WV or KY, he belongs to MA and IL.

Calhoun was from the Deep South not the border states and there was very different ethos between the Mountain, Hill and Border state poor whites and the Planter dominated Deep South. This is overlooked now but there is a long history of them being opposed to each other. For instance strong Mountain Republicanism while the Deep South was the Solid South. Also the border states voted for Clinton while the Deep South went to Dole, and so on. Mountain counties trended towards LBJ because Goldwater pandered too much to the Deep South and blackbelt/urban/low country whites. This is discussed in Kevin Phillips, "The Emerging Republican Majority" from 1969.

These days, there's very little difference between white trash from MS and TN. At one point, there may have been, but nowadays, they're all just uneducated white bigots.

What you said was factually inaccurate on its face. Regardless of any concept of some irrelevant assessment of mentality and temperament, Lincoln's family was one of poor white farmers from the hill country of Kentucky, a border state.

Nope. It's 100% accurate. If my family moved to AL, we wouldn't all suddenly become racist, evangelical, anti-intellectual white trash. We'd feed the animals at the petting zoo, but we wouldn't become them.

Finally to further drive a nail into the coffin of the point I was originally responding to, Lincoln's moderate temperament meant that Lincoln was rather gentle in his plans to deal with the defeated South. His words to Grant were "Let them up easy".

Pfffft. Oh, yes, the South regarded Lincoln as a moderate. He was so moderate, they organized a racist insurrection before he even assumed office. So stupid. No, Lincoln was HATED by the same Southern white conservatives who hated the Civil Rights movement and Barack Obama.

BTW: Lincoln made a mistake. He should've exterminated Southern whites. To paraphrase Trent Lott, we wouldn't have had all of these problems all of these years.

lol dude calm down.

LOL — you think I'm kidding. No, American politics has revolved around race since its inception. I'm suggesting that if we had removed the villains of the story, the world would be a better place. You, for whatever reason, are in denial. I'm sorry, but John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Bull Connor, and Strom Thurmond were trash. They contributed nothing to civilization, and deserved to die.

[Intell]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states.

Nope. Lincoln came from a family of MA puritans — Yankees — who migrated westward. Try again.

His base did yes, but he did not.

He was born in Kentucky (The definition of a border state) and his family was struggling so they moved to Indiana and then to Illinois.

What part of that is incorrect?

I think there's a big difference between the values of the Lincoln family and the Calhoun family, for instance. Being poor doesn't make you 'white trash' — it's more a belligerent, anti-intellectual attitude. It's akin to poor white Southerners in the early-20th century vs. equally poor immigrant Jews. Obviously, one group succeeded, the other continues to bitch and whine and leech and scapegoat, despite holding considerable political power (unlike non-whites). Lincoln was an autodidact, but being a moron — e.g., Trump — is an admirable character trait for many white evangelicals. So Lincoln doesn't belong to WV or KY, he belongs to MA and IL.

Calhoun was from the Deep South not the border states and there was very different ethos between the Mountain, Hill and Border state poor whites and the Planter dominated Deep South. This is overlooked now but there is a long history of them being opposed to each other. For instance strong Mountain Republicanism while the Deep South was the Solid South. Also the border states voted for Clinton while the Deep South went to Dole, and so on. Mountain counties trended towards LBJ because Goldwater pandered too much to the Deep South and blackbelt/urban/low country whites. This is discussed in Kevin Phillips, "The Emerging Republican Majority" from 1969.

These days, there's very little difference between white trash from MS and TN. At one point, there may have been, but nowadays, they're all just uneducated white bigots.

What you said was factually inaccurate on its face. Regardless of any concept of some irrelevant assessment of mentality and temperament, Lincoln's family was one of poor white farmers from the hill country of Kentucky, a border state.

Nope. It's 100% accurate. If my family moved to AL, we wouldn't all suddenly become racist, evangelical, anti-intellectual white trash. We'd feed the animals at the petting zoo, but we wouldn't become them.

Finally to further drive a nail into the coffin of the point I was originally responding to, Lincoln's moderate temperament meant that Lincoln was rather gentle in his plans to deal with the defeated South. His words to Grant were "Let them up easy".

Pfffft. Oh, yes, the South regarded Lincoln as a moderate. He was so moderate, they organized a racist insurrection before he even assumed office. So stupid. No, Lincoln was HATED by the same Southern white conservatives who hated the Civil Rights movement and Barack Obama.

BTW: Lincoln made a mistake. He should've exterminated Southern whites. To paraphrase Trent Lott, we wouldn't have had all of these problems all of these years.

lol dude calm down.

LOL — you think I'm kidding. No, American politics has revolved around race since its inception. I'm suggesting that if we had removed the villains of the story, the world would be a better place. You, for whatever reason, are in denial. I'm sorry, but John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Bull Connor, and Strom Thurmond were trash. They contributed nothing to civilization, and deserved to die.

Cool story bra.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

It's a cancer that Lincoln and Grant and Sherman should've eradicated, but now we're stuck with it, sadly.

Lincoln came from a family of poor white trash in the border states.

Nope. Lincoln came from a family of MA puritans — Yankees — who migrated westward. Try again.

His base did yes, but he did not.

He was born in Kentucky (The definition of a border state) and his family was struggling so they moved to Indiana and then to Illinois.

What part of that is incorrect?

I think there's a big difference between the values of the Lincoln family and the Calhoun family, for instance. Being poor doesn't make you 'white trash' — it's more a belligerent, anti-intellectual attitude. It's akin to poor white Southerners in the early-20th century vs. equally poor immigrant Jews. Obviously, one group succeeded, the other continues to bitch and whine and leech and scapegoat, despite holding considerable political power (unlike non-whites). Lincoln was an autodidact, but being a moron — e.g., Trump — is an admirable character trait for many white evangelicals. So Lincoln doesn't belong to WV or KY, he belongs to MA and IL.

Calhoun was from the Deep South not the border states and there was very different ethos between the Mountain, Hill and Border state poor whites and the Planter dominated Deep South. This is overlooked now but there is a long history of them being opposed to each other. For instance strong Mountain Republicanism while the Deep South was the Solid South. Also the border states voted for Clinton while the Deep South went to Dole, and so on. Mountain counties trended towards LBJ because Goldwater pandered too much to the Deep South and blackbelt/urban/low country whites. This is discussed in Kevin Phillips, "The Emerging Republican Majority" from 1969.

These days, there's very little difference between white trash from MS and TN. At one point, there may have been, but nowadays, they're all just uneducated white bigots.

What you said was factually inaccurate on its face. Regardless of any concept of some irrelevant assessment of mentality and temperament, Lincoln's family was one of poor white farmers from the hill country of Kentucky, a border state.

Nope. It's 100% accurate. If my family moved to AL, we wouldn't all suddenly become racist, evangelical, anti-intellectual white trash. We'd feed the animals at the petting zoo, but we wouldn't become them.

Finally to further drive a nail into the coffin of the point I was originally responding to, Lincoln's moderate temperament meant that Lincoln was rather gentle in his plans to deal with the defeated South. His words to Grant were "Let them up easy".

Pfffft. Oh, yes, the South regarded Lincoln as a moderate. He was so moderate, they organized a racist insurrection before he even assumed office. So stupid. No, Lincoln was HATED by the same Southern white conservatives who hated the Civil Rights movement and Barack Obama.

BTW: Lincoln made a mistake. He should've exterminated Southern whites. To paraphrase Trent Lott, we wouldn't have had all of these problems all of these years.

lol dude calm down.

LOL — you think I'm kidding. No, American politics has revolved around race since its inception. I'm suggesting that if we had removed the villains of the story, the world would be a better place. You, for whatever reason, are in denial. I'm sorry, but John Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, Bull Connor, and Strom Thurmond were trash. They contributed nothing to civilization, and deserved to die.

Cool story bra.

I mean, he's not really wrong that those people contributed nothing good to society and deserved to die.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

When you start exterminating people because you disagree with them, you have surrendered the very ideals that made America a country worth fighting for to begin with.

To quote Lincoln, "Might as well move to Russia or some other place where they are honest about their despotism".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You see folks what we have here above is a classic example of subverting history towards one's political ends and throw in a little bit of excessive passion behind it to the point where you misread or complete ignore what the other guy is trying to say and then you have this mess.


The South Hated Lincoln? You don't Say! There used to be a pic for this but we cannot have nice things anymore, because money.

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the South hated Lincoln, it talked about how Lincoln's politics and temperment were one of moderation. Lincoln initially ran on just restricting slavery to where it already existed, this moderation was not aimed at making the South like him for various reasons this was even more offensive to the South than abolition, but that is a story for another post.

This moderation was aimed at the very swing voters that would decide a state like Illinois and also Pennsylvania, where the Republicans had strong bases in the Northern parts of these states and in PA, in the Philly area, but were getting drowned elsewhere in these states. Lincoln being a border stater with a more moderate position, could peal off enough votes and also get a few hold out former Whigs to hop on board with his economic nationalism (yes Lincoln was a committed economic nationalist) and allow him to narrowly eak out a win in these crucially decisive states.

Towards the end of the war, Lincoln desired to try and restore the union, extermination was neither realistic, nor on the menu for even the most radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens and thus such represent little more than the fanciful delusions of extremists.

Racism, bigotry and nativism and economic nationalism are not exclusive to the South and as much as you can hate on Southerners for being on the wrong side of history, just remember it was the South that ensured Freedom of Religion through Thomas Jefferson, it was the South that routinely opposed the interests of banks, it was the South's Representatives the produced Glass Steagal and it was the South that made the Populist and eventual progressive takeover over of the Democratic Party possible.

[Kizzuwanda]

You see folks what we have here above is a classic example of subverting history towards one's political ends and throw in a little bit of excessive passion behind it to the point where you misread or complete ignore what the other guy is trying to say and then you have this mess.


The South Hated Lincoln? You don't Say! There used to be a pic for this but we cannot have nice things anymore, because money.

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the South hated Lincoln, it talked about how Lincoln's politics and temperment were one of moderation. Lincoln initially ran on just restricting slavery to where it already existed, this moderation was not aimed at making the South like him for various reasons this was even more offensive to the South than abolition, but that is a story for another post.

This moderation was aimed at the very swing voters that would decide a state like Illinois and also Pennsylvania, where the Republicans had strong bases in the Northern parts of these states and in PA, in the Philly area, but were getting drowned elsewhere in these states. Lincoln being a border stater with a more moderate position, could peal off enough votes and also get a few hold out former Whigs to hop on board with his economic nationalism (yes Lincoln was a committed economic nationalist) and allow him to narrowly eak out a win in these crucially decisive states.

Towards the end of the war, Lincoln desired to try and restore the union, extermination was neither realistic, nor on the menu for even the most radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens and thus such represent little more than the fanciful delusions of extremists.

Racism, bigotry and nativism and economic nationalism are not exclusive to the South and as much as you can hate on Southerners for being on the wrong side of history, just remember it was the South that ensured Freedom of Religion through Thomas Jefferson, it was the South that routinely opposed the interests of banks, it was the South's Representatives the produced Glass Steagal and it was the South that made the Populist and eventual progressive takeover over of the Democratic Party possible.

The south is historically the most economically left-wing, populist region of the country. Arkansas and Oklahoma were hotbeds of socialism. There would have been no New Deal without the South. Poor whites of southern origin, the people that RP McM wants to exterminate, were recognized by Black Panthers and similar groups as an oppressed people, and a natural ally of the revolutionary rainbow coalition. Maybe what has driven them toward right-wing politics in recent decades is that the American "left" regards them as the scum of the earth and is obsessed with destroying their cherished cultural symbol, the Confederate flag? Most are still left economically.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You see folks what we have here above is a classic example of subverting history towards one's political ends and throw in a little bit of excessive passion behind it to the point where you misread or complete ignore what the other guy is trying to say and then you have this mess.


The South Hated Lincoln? You don't Say! There used to be a pic for this but we cannot have nice things anymore, because money.

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the South hated Lincoln, it talked about how Lincoln's politics and temperment were one of moderation. Lincoln initially ran on just restricting slavery to where it already existed, this moderation was not aimed at making the South like him for various reasons this was even more offensive to the South than abolition, but that is a story for another post.

This moderation was aimed at the very swing voters that would decide a state like Illinois and also Pennsylvania, where the Republicans had strong bases in the Northern parts of these states and in PA, in the Philly area, but were getting drowned elsewhere in these states. Lincoln being a border stater with a more moderate position, could peal off enough votes and also get a few hold out former Whigs to hop on board with his economic nationalism (yes Lincoln was a committed economic nationalist) and allow him to narrowly eak out a win in these crucially decisive states.

Towards the end of the war, Lincoln desired to try and restore the union, extermination was neither realistic, nor on the menu for even the most radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens and thus such represent little more than the fanciful delusions of extremists.

Racism, bigotry and nativism and economic nationalism are not exclusive to the South and as much as you can hate on Southerners for being on the wrong side of history, just remember it was the South that ensured Freedom of Religion through Thomas Jefferson, it was the South that routinely opposed the interests of banks, it was the South's Representatives the produced Glass Steagal and it was the South that made the Populist and eventual progressive takeover over of the Democratic Party possible.

The south is historically the most economically left-wing, populist region of the country. Arkansas and Oklahoma were hotbeds of socialism. There would have been no New Deal without the South. Poor whites of southern origin, the people that RP McM wants to exterminate, were recognized by Black Panthers and similar groups as an oppressed people, and a natural ally of the revolutionary rainbow coalition. Maybe what has driven them toward right-wing politics in recent decades is that the American "left" regards them as the scum of the earth and is obsessed with destroying their cherished cultural symbol, the Confederate flag? Most are still left economically.

Many of the poorest do not even vote at all.

[Ilhan Apologist]

You see folks what we have here above is a classic example of subverting history towards one's political ends and throw in a little bit of excessive passion behind it to the point where you misread or complete ignore what the other guy is trying to say and then you have this mess.


The South Hated Lincoln? You don't Say! There used to be a pic for this but we cannot have nice things anymore, because money.

What I said had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the South hated Lincoln, it talked about how Lincoln's politics and temperment were one of moderation. Lincoln initially ran on just restricting slavery to where it already existed, this moderation was not aimed at making the South like him for various reasons this was even more offensive to the South than abolition, but that is a story for another post.

This moderation was aimed at the very swing voters that would decide a state like Illinois and also Pennsylvania, where the Republicans had strong bases in the Northern parts of these states and in PA, in the Philly area, but were getting drowned elsewhere in these states. Lincoln being a border stater with a more moderate position, could peal off enough votes and also get a few hold out former Whigs to hop on board with his economic nationalism (yes Lincoln was a committed economic nationalist) and allow him to narrowly eak out a win in these crucially decisive states.

Towards the end of the war, Lincoln desired to try and restore the union, extermination was neither realistic, nor on the menu for even the most radical Republicans like Thaddeus Stevens and thus such represent little more than the fanciful delusions of extremists.

Racism, bigotry and nativism and economic nationalism are not exclusive to the South and as much as you can hate on Southerners for being on the wrong side of history, just remember it was the South that ensured Freedom of Religion through Thomas Jefferson, it was the South that routinely opposed the interests of banks, it was the South's Representatives the produced Glass Steagal and it was the South that made the Populist and eventual progressive takeover over of the Democratic Party possible.

The south is historically the most economically left-wing, populist region of the country. Arkansas and Oklahoma were hotbeds of socialism. There would have been no New Deal without the South. Poor whites of southern origin, the people that RP McM wants to exterminate, were recognized by Black Panthers and similar groups as an oppressed people, and a natural ally of the revolutionary rainbow coalition. Maybe what has driven them toward right-wing politics in recent decades is that the American "left" regards them as the scum of the earth and is obsessed with destroying their cherished cultural symbol, the Confederate flag? Most are still left economically.

Many of the poorest do not even vote at all.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

When you start exterminating people because you disagree with them, you have surrendered the very ideals that made America a country worth fighting for to begin with.

To quote Lincoln, "Might as well move to Russia or some other place where they are honest about their despotism".

I absolutely don't believe in exterminating anyone, I'm against the death penalty in all cases and certainly in cases where the person's only crime was holding despicable views. that doesn't mean that they didn't deserve to die, however.