Banning groups with confederate affiliations

[Jason Harvestdancer]

[removed]

 

[Rhea]

The topic is whether the bill has merit. Stay on it please.

 

[Rhea]

So everyone has found their excuse to not discuss the bill. Congratulations, I guess that means the Democratic Party has no historical ties to slavery.

Poeple addressed your question and gave reasons it is not valid.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Since we are cleansing our history of statues and et cetera that have ties to the old south, the confederacy, and slavery, it seems time to do something about groups that have that connection.

GOP Rep Introduced Bill to Ban Democratic Party for Past Support of Slavery

On Thursday, Republican Texas Representative Louie Gohmert introduced a House resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States.

"Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party's loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn't so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan," Gohmert said in a statement.

Some people say there was some mythical big switch that took place sometime around the 1960s. I don't see it. After all, have to get behind someone in order to stab them in the back.

What are all the groups this applies to?

Sons of the Confederacy?
Daughters of the Confederacy?
United States govt?
KKK?

The state of Georgia?
The state of Louisiana?
Alabama?

Or does it only apply to the Democratic Party?

The article does say:
"...resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States."

Emphasis added.

 

[Politesse]

So everyone has found their excuse to not discuss the bill. Congratulations, I guess that means the Democratic Party has no historical ties to slavery.

It absolutely does, though so do the Republicans, the Houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the government as a whole.

 

[Rhea]

What are all the groups this applies to?
[...]
The state of Georgia?
The state of Louisiana?
Alabama?

Or does it only apply to the Democratic Party?

The article does say:
"...resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States."

Emphasis added.

Good point. Here’s an idea. We disband the Democratic party for it’s evil past, renaming it to be the Progressive Party or some such. And meanwhile, we also disband the 13 states that supported the confederacy and re-name them - as one state - into something more savory. Combined, they now have 2 senators. That will make a tremendously fruitful amount of progress on eliminating the evil effects of the past.


Great call, Gohmert!

 

[laughing dog]

So everyone has found their excuse to not discuss the bill. Congratulations, I guess that means the Democratic Party has no historical ties to slavery.

You guess wrong. No one denies those historical ties. Those ties are part of history.

As others have pointed out, there are differences between those ties and those of the Confederate generals and politicians. First and foremost, the Confederate generals and politicians engaged in treason while the Democrats did not. Second, as others have pointed out, the current Democratic party dramatically changed their views and stance, something the Confederate generals and politicians did not.

Mr. Gohmert's proposal is both incredibly moronic and authoritarian. It would apply to many states (as Don pointed out) and other groups. It denies those people their freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Finally, it is pure political theater, since that resolution has no chance of passing the House.

It is lame attempt at trolling by a pathetic troll.

 

[marc]

The article does say:
"...resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States."

Emphasis added.

As the Republican Party is currently supporting confederate flags and monuments, would that include them as well?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The truth is that while America has historic people that are tarnished by links to racism or slavery, they also had other significant aspects that embettered our nation for the long term.

Where as Confederate historic people are symbols because of the Confederate’s drive to make slavery an institution that would forever be an institution. That is all they are famous for. There was nothing else that made these people relevant. Lee, Davis, Jackson are all known simply for slavery.

Meanwhile the Democrat Party dates way back and had very disturbing views on slavery. If liberals wanted to ‘erase’ history, this would be a convenient thing to erase, so we can walk away from those positions. But we don’t. We also don’t erect statues to people whose only contribution to the nation was a love for the institution for slavery.

I really feel for people that don’t understand the difference.

 

[Politesse]

The truth is that while America has historic people that are tarnished by links to racism or slavery, they also had other significant aspects that embettered our nation for the long term.

Where as Confederate historic people are symbols because of the Confederate’s drive to make slavery an institution that would forever be an institution. That is all they are famous for. There was nothing else that made these people relevant. Lee, Davis, Jackson are all known simply for slavery.

Meanwhile the Democrat Party dates way back and had very disturbing views on slavery. If liberals wanted to ‘erase’ history, this would be a convenient thing to erase, so we can walk away from those positions. But we don’t. We also don’t erect statues to people whose only contribution to the nation was a love for the institution for slavery.

I really feel for people that don’t understand the difference.

I don't think it's a bad idea to burn it all down. Why should we monumentalize cruelty?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This may be hard for people to understand, but I can find it serious AND funny at the same time. Two different emotions at once, because my emotions are not limited to the depth of a teaspoon.

On the other hand, people want to talk about the author instead of the text, and want to talk about my motives for sharing the story instead of the text.

No matter what you can say about the author, or what you can say about me, there is a definite historic tie between the Democratic Party and slavery.

 

[ZiprHead]

This may be hard for people to understand, but I can find it serious AND funny at the same time. Two different emotions at once, because my emotions are not limited to the depth of a teaspoon.

On the other hand, people want to talk about the author instead of the text, and want to talk about my motives for sharing the story instead of the text.

No matter what you can say about the author, or what you can say about me, there is a definite historic tie between the Democratic Party and slavery.

Thanks for the update, captain obvious. We wouldn't have known without you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's a historic tie between the Constitution and slavery. But the non-trolling efforts are more about current ties to, or efforts supporting racism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This may be hard for people to understand, but I can find it serious AND funny at the same time. Two different emotions at once, because my emotions are not limited to the depth of a teaspoon.

On the other hand, people want to talk about the author instead of the text, and want to talk about my motives for sharing the story instead of the text.

No matter what you can say about the author, or what you can say about me, there is a definite historic tie between the Democratic Party and slavery.

There have been 20+ substantive responses. Could you respond to ANY of these substantive posts?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This may be hard for people to understand, but I can find it serious AND funny at the same time. Two different emotions at once, because my emotions are not limited to the depth of a teaspoon.

On the other hand, people want to talk about the author instead of the text, and want to talk about my motives for sharing the story instead of the text.

No matter what you can say about the author, or what you can say about me, there is a definite historic tie between the Democratic Party and slavery.

Thanks for the update, captain obvious. We wouldn't have known without you.

You're welcome, captain teaspoon.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There have been 20+ substantive responses. Could you respond to ANY of these substantive posts?

"He's a bad guy" is not a substantive response. "You shared this so therefore you agree with him" is not a substantive response. "You think this is funny so therefore we shouldn't take this seriously" is not a substantive response.

Is there maybe one or two that I missed in the deluge of responses that you think are substantive but are actually as shallow as an empty teaspoon?

 

[ZiprHead]

This may be hard for people to understand, but I can find it serious AND funny at the same time. Two different emotions at once, because my emotions are not limited to the depth of a teaspoon.

On the other hand, people want to talk about the author instead of the text, and want to talk about my motives for sharing the story instead of the text.

No matter what you can say about the author, or what you can say about me, there is a definite historic tie between the Democratic Party and slavery.

Thanks for the update, captain obvious. We wouldn't have known without you.

You're welcome, captain teaspoon.

And you're welcome to you too, captain puddle (the depth of your reasoning).

 

[Arctish]

This is a substantive response to the OP:

Since we are cleansing our history of statues and et cetera that have ties to the old south, the confederacy, and slavery, it seems time to do something about groups that have that connection.

GOP Rep Introduced Bill to Ban Democratic Party for Past Support of Slavery

On Thursday, Republican Texas Representative Louie Gohmert introduced a House resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States.

"Since people are demanding we rid ourselves of the entities, symbols, and reminders of the repugnant aspects of our past, then the time has come for Democrats to acknowledge their party's loathsome and bigoted past, and consider changing their party name to something that isn't so blatantly and offensively tied to slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination, and the Ku Klux Klan," Gohmert said in a statement.

Some people say there was some mythical big switch that took place sometime around the 1960s. I don't see it. After all, have to get behind someone in order to stab them in the back.

What are all the groups this applies to?

Sons of the Confederacy?
Daughters of the Confederacy?
United States govt?
KKK?

The state of Georgia?
The state of Louisiana?
Alabama?

Or does it only apply to the Democratic Party?

The article does say:
"...resolution that would ban the Democratic Party and any other groups that have historically supported the Confederacy or slavery in the United States."

Emphasis added.

Do you support banning the United Daughters of the Confederacy? What about the League of the South? And how does banning the Democratic Party not trample First Amendment Rights of free speech and assembly?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The United Daughters of the Confederacy is an interesting group because at first they appear innocuous. However, this organization was often the one putting up the statues and their plaques. The statues were Confederate generals, sometimes KKK members. The plaques were statements reflecting Lost Cause ideology. I've mentioned before my hobby of genealogy and this organization has actually blocked truth in some of the things I've looked into because of their revisionist history. For example, some of the prisoner of war camps having union prisoners---my greatx3 grandfather died in one sort of---had officers tried for war crimes. When people today try to do research into the pow camps, they often encounter two versions of history of the camps. This isn't a trivial story telling controversy either. The organization owns documents, may have destroyed documents, owns historical artifacts, writes papers and histories etc...

Founders: Caroline Douglas Meriwether b. 1833 and Anna Davenport Raines b. 1854. To be clear, I bring up their birth years because they were alive before the war. They were not merely daughters of Confederates. They were Confederates.

They did not form the organization until 1894. Recall KKK formed post war by Confederates. So the organization's tributes to KKK via statues was and is completely inappropriate...even indirectly supportive of terrorism and murder. The organization also created a Southern Cross of Honor medal to give to living Confederate soldiers. They awarded over 78,000 medals. Just think about the power of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of local ceremonies or newspaper stories in Southern towns of revised heroes between 1894 and all the way up to 1951 when the last Confederate soldier died.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Jason?