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

[Sumner 1868]

The south is historically the most economically left-wing, populist region of the country.

No, Western miners are the ones that deserve that distinction.

[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.

Cool story bra.

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

I love you! Yeah, the truth is controversial, evidently. Sadly, the ability to recognize 'white racists = white trash' deeply hurts many Republicans in the Trump era. Sadly. they can't accept that Lee and Goldwater and Wallace and Nixon and Trump believed the same things. 'Cause they're all racist rodents .

[R.P. McM]

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".

100% wrong, The Union vs. the Confederacy and the Allies vs. the Axis was a wholly political disagreement. One side was righteous but flawed, the other side was despicable subhuman waste. But it was a political disagreement, hombre! Yeah, some of these disagreements are worth dying or killing over, sadly .

[R.P. McM]

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.

Pfffffffffft! Hahahaha! Yep — that's a plausible interpretation! Confederate flag: left-wing symbol /s. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! yeah, we're gonna destroy that and a whole lot more!!!

[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".

100% wrong, The Union vs. the Confederacy and the Allies vs. the Axis was a wholly political disagreement. One side was righteous but flawed, the other side was despicable pieces of subhuman waste. But it was a political disagreement, hombre! Yeah, some of these disagreements are worth dying or killing over, sadly .

When you have succumb to mass extermination of political opponents, you have exceeded the boundaries upon which America was founded.

There was a war, the war was fought and people died in that war but once the war was over there was a time for peace. We can disagree about how that was handled and how reconstruction should have happened, but never would it be acceptable to murder people.

Again you seem to not comprehend that there were border states were families literally had people fighting on both sides. You had the poorest of the poor white farmers in Eastern Kentucky and Tennessee who voted against secession and many of them voted Republican while the rest of the South was solid Democratic because they were pro-union Whigs.

I am a Northerner by birth. I grew up in PA and upstate New York. I was born in the part of PA that has always been heavily Republican whether or it was for Abe Lincoln or for Donald Trump (Northern border with NY) and my mother's family was ancestrally Republican.

You say Hitler was evil, well you know what Hitler was evil for a reason. He was evil because he killed people he didn't like. Stalin was evil because he killed millions more than Hitler that he was afraid of or just didn't like. Mao probably even more than Stalin and certainly more than Hitler. We are a America because we don't do Hitler or Stalin or Mao here, we don't engage in mass killing and extermination camps.

When you become so blind in opposition that you submit to endorse engaging in the same tactics as the worst villains in human history, than it is you are in the same league with Hitler and all the rest, not some hill billy with a confederate license plate and a shotgun in his truck.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You need to chill out.

[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".

100% wrong, The Union vs. the Confederacy and the Allies vs. the Axis was a wholly political disagreement. One side was righteous but flawed, the other side was despicable pieces of subhuman waste. But it was a political disagreement, hombre! Yeah, some of these disagreements are worth dying or killing over, sadly .

When you have succumb to mass extermination of political opponents, you have exceeded the boundaries upon which America was founded.

Hahahahaha! Except for the slaves and the Native Americans, right?! So, so, so, so, so stupid, it hurts! No, if you can perpetrate genocide against Natives or Africans, you can surely liquidate evangelical, white trash fascists! They aren't my fellow countrymen, and they deserve to die!

Honestly, to be frank with you, knowing what I know now: I'd rather that William Tecumseh Sherman had hanged y'all than Jesse Helms had assumed a Senate seat. Sorry

Again I was born in Pennsylvania and grew up between there and New York. Technically that makes me a carpetbagger. I have only been in a church twice in my entire life (both for funerals), I never liked Jesse Helms and I don't appreciate your presumptuous arrogance.

Are you implying that the North was not complicit in genocide of the Native Americans? Including one William T. Sherman?

Also Sherman was very lenient on the south after the war, so much so that ANDREW JOHNSON, thought he had gone too far in his peace deal with Joe Johnston and was too easy on the rebs. Sherman was also pro-slavery and had lived in the South before the war and he actually preferred Southern Culture to the North's. But go on talking about how he was going to exterminate it.  

[Former President tack50]

I mean, it's worth noting that usually the winners of a war do take revenge on the losers (history is written by the winners and what not). Especially in Civil Wars, where first order of business for the new government is usually to purge (counter)-revolutionaries and people from the old regime by executing them, sending them to concentration camps, etc.

The fact that the US circa 1866 didn't round up the confederate elite and sympathisers and execute them (or send them to concentration camps or jail at the very least) should be seen as an exception. Even for a democracy, normally pro-confederate sentiments would have been banned.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I mean, it's worth noting that usually the winners of a war do take revenge on the losers (history is written by the winners and what not). Especially in Civil Wars, where first order of business for the new government is usually to purge (counter)-revolutionaries and people from the old regime by executing them, sending them to concentration camps, etc.

The fact that the US circa 1866 didn't round up the confederate elite and sympathisers and execute them (or send them to concentration camps or jail at the very least) should be seen as an exception. Even for a democracy, normally pro-confederate sentiments would have been banned.

The American Constitution doesn't allow for banning sentiments. It was this constitution that we did in fact fight a war to preserve and thus it would be the height of historical tragedies if after the deaths of 600,000 people, we gave that up and became just like every other country.

I have no sympathy for treason or secession. I do not condone the Lost Cause and have devoted many an effort post to tearing it a new one, but there is a difference between rejecting the lost cause, decrying the horrible hypocrisy on which the Confederacy and condoning or establishing the mass extermination of the entire Southern population.

[Kizzuwanda]

Confederate flag: left-wing symbol /s. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! yeah, we're gonna destroy that and a whole lot more!!!

[Former President tack50]

I mean, it's worth noting that usually the winners of a war do take revenge on the losers (history is written by the winners and what not). Especially in Civil Wars, where first order of business for the new government is usually to purge (counter)-revolutionaries and people from the old regime by executing them, sending them to concentration camps, etc.

The fact that the US circa 1866 didn't round up the confederate elite and sympathisers and execute them (or send them to concentration camps or jail at the very least) should be seen as an exception. Even for a democracy, normally pro-confederate sentiments would have been banned.

The American Constitution doesn't allow for banning sentiments. It was this constitution that we did in fact fight a war to preserve and thus it would be the height of historical tragedies if after the deaths of 600,000 people, we gave that up and became just like every other country.

I have no sympathy for treason or secession. I do not condone the Lost Cause and have devoted many an effort post to tearing it a new one, but there is a difference between rejecting the lost cause, decrying the horrible hypocrisy on which the Confederacy and condoning or establishing the mass extermination of the entire Southern population.

It wouldn't be "mass extermination of the Southern population". At worst you'd get "mass extermination of the Southern government", but the average Southerner wouldn't be affected for the most part. Think of Germany right after WW2 and the de-nazification policies that followed (probably an anachronism but whatever)

So you'd get whatever the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials would have been, plus people involved in the confederate cause would have lost their jobs and probably their property; plus an extra dose of censorship. The confederate flag would probably be looked at as the Nazi flag is in Germany, where just flying it would get you in trouble.

Of course I imagine this would probably enter into conflict with several provisions of the constitution, but I imagine either an activist court would get around those or constitutional amendments would be passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I mean, it's worth noting that usually the winners of a war do take revenge on the losers (history is written by the winners and what not). Especially in Civil Wars, where first order of business for the new government is usually to purge (counter)-revolutionaries and people from the old regime by executing them, sending them to concentration camps, etc.

The fact that the US circa 1866 didn't round up the confederate elite and sympathisers and execute them (or send them to concentration camps or jail at the very least) should be seen as an exception. Even for a democracy, normally pro-confederate sentiments would have been banned.

The American Constitution doesn't allow for banning sentiments. It was this constitution that we did in fact fight a war to preserve and thus it would be the height of historical tragedies if after the deaths of 600,000 people, we gave that up and became just like every other country.

I have no sympathy for treason or secession. I do not condone the Lost Cause and have devoted many an effort post to tearing it a new one, but there is a difference between rejecting the lost cause, decrying the horrible hypocrisy on which the Confederacy and condoning or establishing the mass extermination of the entire Southern population.

It wouldn't be "mass extermination of the Southern population". At worst you'd get "mass extermination of the Southern government", but the average Southerner wouldn't be affected for the most part. Think of Germany right after WW2 and the de-nazification policies that followed (probably an anachronism but whatever)

So you'd get whatever the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials would have been, plus people involved in the confederate cause would have lost their jobs and probably their property; plus an extra dose of censorship. The confederate flag would probably be looked at as the Nazi flag is in Germany, where just flying it would get you in trouble.

Of course I imagine this would probably enter into conflict with several provisions of the constitution, but I imagine either an activist court would get around those or constitutional amendments would be passed.

That is not what R.P. McM was saying though.

[R.P. McM]

I mean, it's worth noting that usually the winners of a war do take revenge on the losers (history is written by the winners and what not). Especially in Civil Wars, where first order of business for the new government is usually to purge (counter)-revolutionaries and people from the old regime by executing them, sending them to concentration camps, etc.

The fact that the US circa 1866 didn't round up the confederate elite and sympathisers and execute them (or send them to concentration camps or jail at the very least) should be seen as an exception. Even for a democracy, normally pro-confederate sentiments would have been banned.

The American Constitution doesn't allow for banning sentiments. It was this constitution that we did in fact fight a war to preserve and thus it would be the height of historical tragedies if after the deaths of 600,000 people, we gave that up and became just like every other country.

I have no sympathy for treason or secession. I do not condone the Lost Cause and have devoted many an effort post to tearing it a new one, but there is a difference between rejecting the lost cause, decrying the horrible hypocrisy on which the Confederacy and condoning or establishing the mass extermination of the entire Southern population.

It wouldn't be "mass extermination of the Southern population". At worst you'd get "mass extermination of the Southern government", but the average Southerner wouldn't be affected for the most part. Think of Germany right after WW2 and the de-nazification policies that followed (probably an anachronism but whatever)

So you'd get whatever the equivalent of the Nuremberg trials would have been, plus people involved in the confederate cause would have lost their jobs and probably their property; plus an extra dose of censorship. The confederate flag would probably be looked at as the Nazi flag is in Germany, where just flying it would get you in trouble.

Of course I imagine this would probably enter into conflict with several provisions of the constitution, but I imagine either an activist court would get around those or constitutional amendments would be passed.

That is not what R.P. McM was saying though.

No, that's fine. I was a bit inebriated. But yeah, postwar Germany would've been a great model for the post-bellum South. But they rejected it, rejected their own responsibility/guilt. Which is why we find ourselves in the current situation. A longer Northern occupation, ending the Senate, or making the South one state with two senators would've been my preferred solution. Obviously, we couldn't let them retain their slaves or align with their ideological peers — the Nazis — some years down the line, so draconian measures were in order.

[R.P. McM]

Confederate flag: left-wing symbol /s. Hahahahahahahahahahaha! yeah, we're gonna destroy that and a whole lot more!!!

Yeah, that's persuasive /s.

[R.P. McM]

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".

100% wrong, The Union vs. the Confederacy and the Allies vs. the Axis was a wholly political disagreement. One side was righteous but flawed, the other side was despicable pieces of subhuman waste. But it was a political disagreement, hombre! Yeah, some of these disagreements are worth dying or killing over, sadly .

When you have succumb to mass extermination of political opponents, you have exceeded the boundaries upon which America was founded.

Hahahahaha! Except for the slaves and the Native Americans, right?! So, so, so, so, so stupid, it hurts! No, if you can perpetrate genocide against Natives or Africans, you can surely liquidate evangelical, white trash fascists! They aren't my fellow countrymen, and they deserve to die!

Honestly, to be frank with you, knowing what I know now: I'd rather that William Tecumseh Sherman had hanged y'all than Jesse Helms had assumed a Senate seat. Sorry

Again I was born in Pennsylvania and grew up between there and New York. Technically that makes me a carpetbagger. I have only been in a church twice in my entire life (both for funerals), I never liked Jesse Helms and I don't appreciate your presumptuous arrogance.

So North Carolinians didn't elect and reelect Jesse Helms and a bunch of other segregationists? Yeah, they did, and they're responsible for it. Personal responsibility may be an alien concept to the Trump Party, but it says pretty awful things about the electorate of NC. They probably didn't deserve equal representation to the folks who elected Lincoln and FDR and LBJ and F.B. Olson and HHH and Mondale. Still don't, frankly. Sorry.

Are you implying that the North was not complicit in genocide of the Native Americans? Including one William T. Sherman?

Also Sherman was very lenient on the south after the war, so much so that ANDREW JOHNSON, thought he had gone too far in his peace deal with Joe Johnston and was too easy on the rebs. Sherman was also pro-slavery and had lived in the South before the war and he actually preferred Southern Culture to the North's. But go on talking about how he was going to exterminate it.  

Yeah, that's an impressively idiotic series of strawmen. Don't remember ever endorsing the North's Likud-esque treatment of the Natives. And Sherman would've followed orders, personal sentiments aside. Also: it's hard to believe that he had greater respect for the South when he warned them, prewar, that they couldn't mass-produce a pair of shoes and were destined to lose. Sounds like he's calling them stupid, belligerent monkeys. Which, tbh ...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Considering you just got moderated for using that word don't you think you better stop using it?


Also, I am not responsible for what NC Did in the 1980's and 1990's, because
1. I was born in 1991 in Pennsylvania
2. Didn't set foot in NC until 2002 at age eleven, and I didn't exactly have a choice in the move
3. Wasn't registered to vote until 2010

If I had the money I would gladly move back to PA.

I have never liked Jesse Helms plain and simple. I even voted against David Rouzer, because of his connection to Jesse Helms. Since moving here I found myself despising the NC Democrats when they had power in the 2000s and the Republicans when they had power in the 2010s.


As for historical responsibility, my county of birth why my mom's family lived for centuries, voted 70% plus for Lincoln in 1860. As for FDR, you are right they didn't support FDR, because north PA and Susquehanna in particular voted for Hoover, Wilkie and Dewey. No place matched the intensity of the South in support for FDR. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/PresidentialCounty1932Colorbrewer.gif

Republicans got almost no support in the South against FDR. The only exceptions were the Mountain counties of East TN, Western VA/NC and South Central KY, all of which are just like my part of PA still uber Republican today just as they were in 1800's.

[RINO Tom]

^ Kind of ironic coming from me, but this isn’t worth arguing with him.  You have provided this forum so much more knowledge, fresh perspective and much needed correction on more occasions than we can count.  This angry boi won’t be the last teenager who joins this forum to scream at us all how he knows everything and is entitled to frankly disgusting views because of it.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

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?

The border states were New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. Kentucky as a whole was easily Lincolns worst performing of those states in both 1860 and 1864. His attachment to the state is basically nonexistent.

[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?

The border states were New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. Kentucky as a whole was easily Lincolns worst performing of those states in both 1860 and 1864. His attachment to the state is basically nonexistent.

Oh look, someone else who didn't my subsequent post.

Lincoln's border state roots helped him, in Illinois and PA the two critical states to winning the election.

There were a lot of fence sitters who were not abolitionists but were concerned about slavery spreading north post Dred Scott. Lincoln's background and platform of just containing slavery to where it already existed appealed to those not-abolitionist, but also not pro-slavery swing voters.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Ranking of Lincolns 1860 Performance in the border states:

1. NJ 48.13%
2. DE 23.72%
3. MO 10.28%
4. WV 03.63%
5. MD 02.48%
6. KY 00.93%
^. VA 00.08%

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Again missed the point.

[R.P. McM]

^ Kind of ironic coming from me, but this isn’t worth arguing with him.  You have provided this forum so much more knowledge, fresh perspective and much needed correction on more occasions than we can count.  This angry boi won’t be the last teenager who joins this forum to scream at us all how he knows everything and is entitled to frankly disgusting views because of it.

Tom, to be quite frank, you're the sort of person who, in times of great moral crisis, maintains his neutrality. You love to whine when I viciously attack Confederates and Segregationists and Nazis and Nazi-praising Republican presidents, never once seriously addressing their staggering moral culpability. Did the people who started a war to preserve the barbaric institution of slavery, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the process, deserve some rather harsh treatment? Absolutely. They were monsters, pure and simple. But you're the sort of go-along-to-get-along type that betrayed AA's in the South during Reconstruction, or excused the conservative German establishment for elevating Adolph Hitler. To you, morality is more a function of popular opinion, and people who raise hell when abominable acts are being committed are hysterical or unhinged. You're perfectly emblematic of today's Republican Party, so pat yourself on the back.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ranking of Lincolns 1860 Performance in the border states:

1. NJ 48.13%
2. DE 23.72%
3. MO 10.28%
4. WV 03.63%
5. MD 02.48%
6. KY 00.93%
^. VA 00.08%

WV wasnt a state in 1860

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Ranking of Lincolns 1860 Performance in the border states:

1. NJ 48.13%
2. DE 23.72%
3. MO 10.28%
4. WV 03.63%
5. MD 02.48%
6. KY 00.93%
^. VA 00.08%

WV wasnt a state in 1860

I separated the vote totals by 1868 state borders based on County data compiled by various sources to create this ranking.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

^ Kind of ironic coming from me, but this isn’t worth arguing with him.  You have provided this forum so much more knowledge, fresh perspective and much needed correction on more occasions than we can count.  This angry boi won’t be the last teenager who joins this forum to scream at us all how he knows everything and is entitled to frankly disgusting views because of it.

Tom, to be quite frank, you're the sort of person who, in times of great moral crisis, maintains his neutrality. You love to whine when I viciously attack Confederates and Segregationists and Nazis and Nazi-praising Republican presidents, never once seriously addressing their staggering moral culpability. Did people who started a war to preserve the barbaric institution of slavery, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans in the process, deserve some rather harsh treatment? Absolutely. They were monsters, pure and simple. But you're the sort of go-along-to-get-along type that betrayed AA's in the South during Reconstruction, or excused the conservative German establishment for elevating Adolph Hitler. To you, morality is more a function of popular opinion, and people who raise hell when abominable acts are being committed are hysterical or unhinged. You're perfectly emblematic of today's Republican Party, so pat yourself on the back.

You haven't once read what I have said in this thread, so one can hardly be surprised that he doesn't find your righteous outrage sincere when you spent a week trying to pin the confederacy on one of the most anti-confederate Republicans on this forum, its even in my name username.

You were the last person I would want by my side in crisis because you let your passion get ahead of the facts.

You see a blue NC avatar and think you know everything about that person. Then you don't listen to a damn thing thing they say and just keep swinging at him and others and even going so far as to violate the Terms of Service in the process with personal attacks more befitting the type you are criticizing.