Nah. They’ve created a narrative where the parties just up and swapped sides sometime in the mid-20th century. Lincoln was totes a modern “democrat.” It’s very convenient.
The Democratic Party started in the 1820s. Right away, it switched sides, as we can see from the fact that they pushed for the removal and extermination of Indians. Also, their opposition was the Whig party, which was against the Indian Removal Act and vowed to protect minorities against mob rule. Because the sides were switched, the vast majority of Whig party were anti-slavery.
(Eventually, there was rift in the party over the issue of slavery, and anti-slavery members of the Whig party, including Abraham Lincoln, exited the party and formed the Republican Party. As we can see, the parties must have switched again because it's common knowledge that Republicans are actually the racist ones.)
Then the parties switched when the Democrats are on record as having mainly been the ones who owned slaves. Not all Democrats owned slaves, but 100% of slaves were owned by Democrats. Not a single Republican in history owned a slave. As we know, the parties switched again when Republicans repudiated slavery and Democrats defended it, leading to the civil war.
Then the parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated Republican Lincoln.
After the Civil War, the parties switched again during the Reconstruction Era, when Republicans attempted to pass a series of civil rights amendments in the late 1800s that would grant citizenship for freedmen. As evidence of the switch, the Democrats voted against giving former slaves citizenship, but the civil rights amendments passed anyway.
The parties switched again when the Democratic Party members founded the KKK as their military arm. Democrats then attempted to pass the first gun control law in order to keep blacks from having guns and retaliating against their former owners. A county wanted to make it illegal to possess firearms, unless you were on a horse. (Hmmm wonder who rode around on horses terrorizing people 🤔). Gun control has always been a noble cause touted by Democrats, but the racist reasons why the concept of gun control was dreamed up was a part of a party mentality switch, but not the actual party.
Somewhere around this time former slaves fought for gun rights for all, and the NRA was formed. The NRA switched parties too when they defended the right for blacks to arm themselves and white NRA members protected blacks from racist attackers.
The parties switched again when Republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, which Democrats fought fiercely against.
The nation saw a rash of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by the Democrats in the KKK and the parties switched again when Democrat Bull Conner tried to avoid prosecuting the racist bombers to get them off the hook. When blacks protested this injustice, the party-switched Democrat Bull Conner sicced dogs and turned the hose on them. He also gave police stand down orders when the KKK forewarned attacks on the freedom riders, who had switched parties.
The parties switched again when a Democratic Party president appointed the first and only KKK member to the Supreme Court.
The parties switched yet again when Democratic president FDR put Asians in racist internment camps.
Then parties switched again when the Democrats filibustered the passing of the second set of civil rights laws giving equal protection to minorities.
The parties switched when a Democrat assassinated MLK.
This brings us to modern times. The parties continue to switch all the time.
The parties switched when Democrats proposed racist policies like affirmative action to limit opportunities for certain racial groups in order to grant privilege to other racial groups.
The parties switched when the Islamic fundamentalist Omar Mateen and several other ISIS mass shooters aligned themselves with Democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
The parties switched again when liberal student groups in schools like UCLA and Berkeley call for segregated housing to make "separate but equal" housing quarters for black students. Actually this is a current ongoing thing, so the parties are right now in the middle of switching on this topic.
Parties always switched currently now that Democrats are rioting and violently protesting democracy.
The parties switched once more when the Democratic Nominee for President, an old white man, said "you're not black" if you don't vote for him, in a moment of clarity of how the Democratic Party sees their largest voter base: as property belonging to them.
So as you can see, because of Party switching, Democrats were always the ones who stood up against racism and wanted peace and unity while Republicans were always the racist and violent ones calling for division and discord.
Cuckservatives are so proud that the republicans loved joggers so much.
Hey guess what the same republicans had Susan B. Anthony who was pivotal to the woman's rights movement and female suffrage and republicans submitted the bill for woman's right to vote and democrats opposed the bill . it was the republicans that were the feminist and jogger worship party, yet cuckservatives cant accept the fact that there actually was a party swap. You are in denial and want to celebrate the achievements of the woke republican party.
Remembering every native getting dumpstered by European empires...
Remembering South Americans being 'owned' by CIA trickery...
Remembering that recent 'colonisation' of the third world to the west was only enabled by globalist actors and how quickly they were deported from Martha's Vineyard...
To be honest, only ones who could say anything like this are the Nepalese as they fought so well against the British, they were straight up recruited with benefits!
Viewing the US civil war in good versus bad terms is a massive oversimplification.
The Union ultimately wanted to keep the nation together so that they could be stronger as a young nation. it would not have been impossible for a divided United States to fall prey to the old European powers, or even Mexico, so there is a good side to wanting to preserve the Union. however, the union government stooped to many lows in order to achieve this goal. they circumvented the Constitution to give themselves "wartime" powers, drafted unwilling soldiers, guns down anti-war protesters, and deliberately attacked and pillaged civilians in the south.
Meanwhile, the Confederacy saw the writing on the wall for how big and divided the United States was getting. the nation's binary divide on the issue of slavery was leading to a situation where half the nation could not abide by the other half, and the winner would be decided by who could establish more states in the West. they saw this was unsustainable, and so made the decision to secede even after the north agreed to keep slavery. the war that then followed was over the rights of the South to secede, with slavery as the catalyst. it's true that many in the South did indeed want to get rid of slavery, but the majority of those in charge wanted to not only preserve slavery but the aristocratic society that they had developed.
the way I see it, the north was good for wanting to preserve the union, but the north was bad because they destroyed many of our protections against government overreach in order to achieve it. The South was good because they sought freedom from a system that would not have respected their rights and traditions, but the South was bad because they were fighting to preserve slavery.
Good point or the African countries that lost and were colonized. Only reason I knew about Native American confederate seas due to growing up in Oklahoma where you get a lot of Indian history.
I really, really, really wanna do things I won't mention to these internet tough guys, who don't even realize how much they're protected from the consequences of their own words by police. They're like fatass boomers who always run their mouths over how "we saved the French in WW2 so they can shut up," as if these mouthbreathers had anything to do with that. Nevermind that Israel can criticize us all they want and suddenly the same fat retards never give them the "we saved your asses in WW2" spiel.
But this lefty internet tough guy shit is even worse. At least the bloviating boomers implicitly acknowledge the sacrifices made by the men who fought the Axis powers, as pathetic and craven as it is for them to take credit for someone else's accomplishments. After the civil war, so many Union men wanted nothing more than to mend fences with the South, all those men had been through hell and although some of them became monsters as a result, others became righteous.
It's even been a long tradition in the US military to honor both the Confederates and the Indians (who fought alongside the Confederates which these types always semlem to forget), because those mfers fought like hell, and made our military stronger in the process. Ever since the Romans it's been a tradition of any remotely honorable military force to assimilate the best men of the vanquished enemy into your own forces, both as a sign of respect and because you'd be a fool not to. These reckless worms talk a big game about bashing the fash and the revolution and making smarmy little bitch comments about wars when IRL they can't even make eye contact with anyone who confronts them, clearly their parents didn't do their job because they should've been taught some goddam respect through the back of a hand.
Well, that, and the fact that the South successfully argued and litigated that the Union Army's destruction of Southern infrastructure meant that we couldn't pay reparations. The Yankees started a war, almost lost it, and had to foot the bill. And then we shipped them the freed slaves.
Given the long-term damage both environmental and structural to the South as a whole, you could make a good argument that the North should be the one paying reparations.
Considering how the fed has become obscenely powerful since then, I'd still say they lost. Although it's hard to tell how much power the fed actually has versus the illusion of control. They're big and corrupt, but they're also noticeably incompetent and badly managed.
The extent to which mainstream "historians" have downplayed Northern war crimes is its own can of worms, no different IMO from Turkish "historians" who downplay what Turkey did to Armenians. It's also kind of amazing in a way, we're long past believing in American exceptionalism as a culture...except for the civil war, where we're lead to believe that Union soldiers acted like gentleman.
Hell, I remember watching a video by that fag Attun-Shei Films or something, before I realized what a giant proglodyte faggot he is (he wasn't always so blatant about it). It was about how during the occupation of New Orleans, the Union general in charge issued an order that Union soldiers are allowed to "address respectable women as prostitutes," as a response to said women antagonizing the troops.
He spun it as just an example of people in the olden days being silly about etiquette, seeing as how this caused an uproar that even reached the UK. When anyone who's historically literate knows that permitting military men to treat a group of women as prostitutes is code for giving your men the green light to rape any broad that gets too uppity. But of course mentioning that bit of subtext would reveal that Southerners weren't just angry about losing the slaves that they never even owned in the first place.
She does know that the confederate South were democrats right?
By modern standards that makes her a Trump supporter.
Nah. They’ve created a narrative where the parties just up and swapped sides sometime in the mid-20th century. Lincoln was totes a modern “democrat.” It’s very convenient.
They swapped before Lincoln. Then swapped back before FDR. Then swapped again before Jim Crow. Then back again after passing the Civil Rights act.
Democrats actually believe this. They will believe whatever it takes to take credit for every "good" thing in our history.
The Democratic Party started in the 1820s. Right away, it switched sides, as we can see from the fact that they pushed for the removal and extermination of Indians. Also, their opposition was the Whig party, which was against the Indian Removal Act and vowed to protect minorities against mob rule. Because the sides were switched, the vast majority of Whig party were anti-slavery.
(Eventually, there was rift in the party over the issue of slavery, and anti-slavery members of the Whig party, including Abraham Lincoln, exited the party and formed the Republican Party. As we can see, the parties must have switched again because it's common knowledge that Republicans are actually the racist ones.)
Then the parties switched when the Democrats are on record as having mainly been the ones who owned slaves. Not all Democrats owned slaves, but 100% of slaves were owned by Democrats. Not a single Republican in history owned a slave. As we know, the parties switched again when Republicans repudiated slavery and Democrats defended it, leading to the civil war.
Then the parties switched again when a Democrat assassinated Republican Lincoln.
After the Civil War, the parties switched again during the Reconstruction Era, when Republicans attempted to pass a series of civil rights amendments in the late 1800s that would grant citizenship for freedmen. As evidence of the switch, the Democrats voted against giving former slaves citizenship, but the civil rights amendments passed anyway.
The parties switched again when the Democratic Party members founded the KKK as their military arm. Democrats then attempted to pass the first gun control law in order to keep blacks from having guns and retaliating against their former owners. A county wanted to make it illegal to possess firearms, unless you were on a horse. (Hmmm wonder who rode around on horses terrorizing people 🤔). Gun control has always been a noble cause touted by Democrats, but the racist reasons why the concept of gun control was dreamed up was a part of a party mentality switch, but not the actual party.
Somewhere around this time former slaves fought for gun rights for all, and the NRA was formed. The NRA switched parties too when they defended the right for blacks to arm themselves and white NRA members protected blacks from racist attackers.
The parties switched again when Republicans fought to desegregate schools and allow black children to attend school with white children, which Democrats fought fiercely against.
The nation saw a rash of black lynchings and bombings of black churches by the Democrats in the KKK and the parties switched again when Democrat Bull Conner tried to avoid prosecuting the racist bombers to get them off the hook. When blacks protested this injustice, the party-switched Democrat Bull Conner sicced dogs and turned the hose on them. He also gave police stand down orders when the KKK forewarned attacks on the freedom riders, who had switched parties.
The parties switched again when a Democratic Party president appointed the first and only KKK member to the Supreme Court.
The parties switched yet again when Democratic president FDR put Asians in racist internment camps.
Then parties switched again when the Democrats filibustered the passing of the second set of civil rights laws giving equal protection to minorities.
The parties switched when a Democrat assassinated MLK.
This brings us to modern times. The parties continue to switch all the time.
The parties switched when Democrats proposed racist policies like affirmative action to limit opportunities for certain racial groups in order to grant privilege to other racial groups.
The parties switched when the Islamic fundamentalist Omar Mateen and several other ISIS mass shooters aligned themselves with Democratic candidates like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
The parties switched again when liberal student groups in schools like UCLA and Berkeley call for segregated housing to make "separate but equal" housing quarters for black students. Actually this is a current ongoing thing, so the parties are right now in the middle of switching on this topic.
Parties always switched currently now that Democrats are rioting and violently protesting democracy.
The parties switched once more when the Democratic Nominee for President, an old white man, said "you're not black" if you don't vote for him, in a moment of clarity of how the Democratic Party sees their largest voter base: as property belonging to them.
So as you can see, because of Party switching, Democrats were always the ones who stood up against racism and wanted peace and unity while Republicans were always the racist and violent ones calling for division and discord.
TL;DR
It's a spicy pasta, Mario!
Cuckservatives are so proud that the republicans loved joggers so much. Hey guess what the same republicans had Susan B. Anthony who was pivotal to the woman's rights movement and female suffrage and republicans submitted the bill for woman's right to vote and democrats opposed the bill . it was the republicans that were the feminist and jogger worship party, yet cuckservatives cant accept the fact that there actually was a party swap. You are in denial and want to celebrate the achievements of the woke republican party.
there is a sliver of truth to it. Lincoln is the patron saint of federal overreach and getting away with it, something that the Democrats love to do.
Remembering every native getting dumpstered by European empires...
Remembering South Americans being 'owned' by CIA trickery...
Remembering that recent 'colonisation' of the third world to the west was only enabled by globalist actors and how quickly they were deported from Martha's Vineyard...
To be honest, only ones who could say anything like this are the Nepalese as they fought so well against the British, they were straight up recruited with benefits!
Gurkhas! There’s even a cigar line named after them
Hmm she doesn't look white. Why is she so pumped about the Union when her family couldn't join it until 1965
Well, Mia Khalifa is Lebanese.
Dang, didn’t know she was into girls
I guess 19th century white men are cool again?
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
the confederates were the good guys
Viewing the US civil war in good versus bad terms is a massive oversimplification.
The Union ultimately wanted to keep the nation together so that they could be stronger as a young nation. it would not have been impossible for a divided United States to fall prey to the old European powers, or even Mexico, so there is a good side to wanting to preserve the Union. however, the union government stooped to many lows in order to achieve this goal. they circumvented the Constitution to give themselves "wartime" powers, drafted unwilling soldiers, guns down anti-war protesters, and deliberately attacked and pillaged civilians in the south.
Meanwhile, the Confederacy saw the writing on the wall for how big and divided the United States was getting. the nation's binary divide on the issue of slavery was leading to a situation where half the nation could not abide by the other half, and the winner would be decided by who could establish more states in the West. they saw this was unsustainable, and so made the decision to secede even after the north agreed to keep slavery. the war that then followed was over the rights of the South to secede, with slavery as the catalyst. it's true that many in the South did indeed want to get rid of slavery, but the majority of those in charge wanted to not only preserve slavery but the aristocratic society that they had developed.
the way I see it, the north was good for wanting to preserve the union, but the north was bad because they destroyed many of our protections against government overreach in order to achieve it. The South was good because they sought freedom from a system that would not have respected their rights and traditions, but the South was bad because they were fighting to preserve slavery.
Good point or the African countries that lost and were colonized. Only reason I knew about Native American confederate seas due to growing up in Oklahoma where you get a lot of Indian history.
lol
I really, really, really wanna do things I won't mention to these internet tough guys, who don't even realize how much they're protected from the consequences of their own words by police. They're like fatass boomers who always run their mouths over how "we saved the French in WW2 so they can shut up," as if these mouthbreathers had anything to do with that. Nevermind that Israel can criticize us all they want and suddenly the same fat retards never give them the "we saved your asses in WW2" spiel.
But this lefty internet tough guy shit is even worse. At least the bloviating boomers implicitly acknowledge the sacrifices made by the men who fought the Axis powers, as pathetic and craven as it is for them to take credit for someone else's accomplishments. After the civil war, so many Union men wanted nothing more than to mend fences with the South, all those men had been through hell and although some of them became monsters as a result, others became righteous.
It's even been a long tradition in the US military to honor both the Confederates and the Indians (who fought alongside the Confederates which these types always semlem to forget), because those mfers fought like hell, and made our military stronger in the process. Ever since the Romans it's been a tradition of any remotely honorable military force to assimilate the best men of the vanquished enemy into your own forces, both as a sign of respect and because you'd be a fool not to. These reckless worms talk a big game about bashing the fash and the revolution and making smarmy little bitch comments about wars when IRL they can't even make eye contact with anyone who confronts them, clearly their parents didn't do their job because they should've been taught some goddam respect through the back of a hand.
That is really the part that makes them seethe.
Well, that, and the fact that the South successfully argued and litigated that the Union Army's destruction of Southern infrastructure meant that we couldn't pay reparations. The Yankees started a war, almost lost it, and had to foot the bill. And then we shipped them the freed slaves.
Y'all sure the South lost the war?
Given the long-term damage both environmental and structural to the South as a whole, you could make a good argument that the North should be the one paying reparations.
Considering how the fed has become obscenely powerful since then, I'd still say they lost. Although it's hard to tell how much power the fed actually has versus the illusion of control. They're big and corrupt, but they're also noticeably incompetent and badly managed.
The extent to which mainstream "historians" have downplayed Northern war crimes is its own can of worms, no different IMO from Turkish "historians" who downplay what Turkey did to Armenians. It's also kind of amazing in a way, we're long past believing in American exceptionalism as a culture...except for the civil war, where we're lead to believe that Union soldiers acted like gentleman.
Hell, I remember watching a video by that fag Attun-Shei Films or something, before I realized what a giant proglodyte faggot he is (he wasn't always so blatant about it). It was about how during the occupation of New Orleans, the Union general in charge issued an order that Union soldiers are allowed to "address respectable women as prostitutes," as a response to said women antagonizing the troops.
He spun it as just an example of people in the olden days being silly about etiquette, seeing as how this caused an uproar that even reached the UK. When anyone who's historically literate knows that permitting military men to treat a group of women as prostitutes is code for giving your men the green light to rape any broad that gets too uppity. But of course mentioning that bit of subtext would reveal that Southerners weren't just angry about losing the slaves that they never even owned in the first place.