NationStates Jolt Archive

The republicans were the ones to free the slaves, but they were actually the democrats of our time.

the republicans obviously. and the parties that pretty much formed them - the free soilers and the anti-slavery whigs and know-nothings.

none of which map exactly on to the modern democratic or republican parties.

It wasn't much of anyone. Hell, Lincoln was against making freed slaves equal to white people, and felt that they should be repatriated. He only freed them because it was the only way to keep the union together. He said himself that if he could keep it together and not free one slave to do it, he'd do it that way, or if he had to do it and free all of the slaves to accomplish unity, that's what would happen. It was never about the slaves for him. It was all about keeping the union together. There were civil rights groups around at the time, but they really couldn't claim responsibility either. Economically, the issue was about making things hard for the southern states, and taking away a resource. It wasn't thought of as a human issue so much as an economic one.

Well, the Republicans on slavery, obviously.

But on Civil Rights? Yup. The leader of the move to block, then render useless, the legislation of 1968 were Sen. Gore (the dead one, not the stiff). In fact, 80% of the Republicans supported it, as opposed to about 65% of Democrats.

Shocking.

And for some trivia, name the first three black Senators....can't think of anyone but Carol Mosley Braun?

In order, they were:
Hiram Rhodes Revels, (R -Mississippi) served 1870-1871
Blanche Kelso Bruce, (R -Mississippi) served 1875-1881
Edward William Brooke, III, (R - Massachusetts) served 1967-1979

Well, the Republicans on slavery, obviously.

But on Civil Rights? Yup. The leader of the move to block, then render useless, the legislation of 1968 were Sen. Gore (the dead one, not the stiff). In fact, 80% of the Republicans supported it, as opposed to about 65% of Democrats.

Shocking.

And for some trivia, name the first three black Senators....can't think of anyone but Carol Mosley Braun?

In order, they were:
Hiram Rhodes Revels, (R -Mississippi) served 1870-1871
Blanche Kelso Bruce, (R -Mississippi) served 1875-1881
Edward William Brooke, III, (R - Massachusetts) served 1967-1979


You do know that much of the 35% of the Democrats who voted against civil rights subsequently switched parties, right? These were the souther "Dixiecrats," and they abandoned the Democratic party after the civil rights movement.

So...how about we forget all this B.S. and say that good people with clear sight from both parties supported the civil rights movement, and some do not accept it to this day.

We should be looking to see what both parties believe will elevate us instead of bickering like children. In fact, let's forget parties all together, and just try to be good people of clear sight ourselves?

Hiram Rhodes Revels, (R -Mississippi) served 1870-1871

oddly enough, his term was short because he was actually finishing out the term that jefferson davis abandoned.

You do know that much of the 35% of the Democrats who voted against civil rights subsequently switched parties, right? These were the souther "Dixiecrats," and they abandoned the Democratic party after the civil rights movement.

So...how about we forget all this B.S. and say that good people with clear sight from both parties supported the civil rights movement, and some do not accept it to this day.

We should be looking to see what both parties believe will elevate us instead of bickering like children. In fact, let's forget parties all together, and just try to be good people of clear sight ourselves?

The republican party should never have accepted the "dixiecrats". Other than those clowns (who are the responsiblity of both parties), I don't think either the republicans or democrats have been racist in outlook for the past thirty years. ( At least not at the national platform level, there are of course indvidual racists that still claim allegiance to either one, but they are abberations not policy makers.)

The republican party should never have accepted the "dixiecrats". Other than those clowns (who are the responsiblity of both parties), I don't think either the republicans or democrats have been racist in outlook for the past thirty years. ( At least not at the national platform level, there are of course indvidual racists that still claim allegiance to either one, but they are abberations not policy makers.)
yeah, but the dixiecrats and their successors control most of the power in the gop(though it actually gets complicated if you try to draw a distinction between the evangelical southern christian right and the dixiecrats, their not quite the same, but certainly not distinct either)

The republican party should never have accepted the "dixiecrats". Other than those clowns (who are the responsiblity of both parties), I don't think either the republicans or democrats have been racist in outlook for the past thirty years. ( At least not at the national platform level, there are of course indvidual racists that still claim allegiance to either one, but they are abberations not policy makers.)

without racist southerners (now going by the name "conservative christians") the republicans would still be hopelessly outnumbered in the house and senate

You do know that much of the 35% of the Democrats who voted against civil rights subsequently switched parties, right? These were the souther "Dixiecrats," and they abandoned the Democratic party after the civil rights movement.

So...how about we forget all this B.S. and say that good people with clear sight from both parties supported the civil rights movement, and some do not accept it to this day.

We should be looking to see what both parties believe will elevate us instead of bickering like children. In fact, let's forget parties all together, and just try to be good people of clear sight ourselves?
so long as you forget about water gate

without racist southerners (now going by the name "conservative christians") the republicans would still be hopelessly outnumbered in the house and senate
thank you for that insult I'll rember it a will hope a mod shows up here

so long as you forget about water gate

Oh, did a number of Republicans involved in it skip over to the Democaratic party after Watergate?

Okay, let's forget Watergate. Then you'll have to forget BJgate. Now, in exchange for forgetting Iran-Contra, you have to vote for Kerry though.

:D

Oh, did a number of Republicans involved in it skip over to the Democaratic party after Watergate?

Okay, let's forget Watergate. Then you'll have to forget BJgate. Now, in exchange for forgetting Iran-Contra, you have to vote for Kerry though.

:D
I will use my vote to vote for kerry

without racist southerners (now going by the name "conservative christians") the republicans would still be hopelessly outnumbered in the house and senate

And you honestly believe that they represent the party nationally.

I can point to literally millions of racists in the north east that vote for democrats in every election. Indeed, in the last democratic primary for mayor of NYC, one of the candidates played to the inherent racism of some NYC neighborhoods, but I don't go round pretending that that means democrats condone racist behavior. And nor should you do so with republicans.

And you honestly believe that they represent the party nationally.

i said that, did i?

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia muses that the Democrats are typically the ones who support the idea that certain races are inferior to others, and therefore need to be compensated for this inferiority to have a chance when competing for admission to college or for jobs.

i said that, did i?

No, but it was implied.

In any event you cannot deny that both parties count heavily upon the votes of racists to support them in the congress. Southern christians are just flavor of the month.

No, but it was implied.

In any event you cannot deny that both parties count heavily upon the votes of racists to support them in the congress. Southern christians are just flavor of the month.

the fact of the matter is that the southern strategy works. it worked for the new deal democrats, and it worked for the post-goldwater republicans.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia muses that the Democrats are typically the ones who support the idea that certain races are inferior to others, and therefore need to be compensated for this inferiority to have a chance when competing for admission to college or for jobs.
hey are you one of those logical conservatives from http://www.protestwarrior.com/

the fact of the matter is that the southern strategy works. it worked for the new deal democrats, and it worked for the post-goldwater republicans.

And the "southern strategy" is?

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia muses that the Democrats are typically the ones who support the idea that certain races are inferior to others, and therefore need to be compensated for this inferiority to have a chance when competing for admission to college or for jobs.

No, that's just the typically skewed way Republicans see things. For some reason, they see accepting help as being inferior. They don't see that minorities still face racism and class inertia. They refuse to fix the educational systems in inner cities that are funded by local property taxes, setting up a vicious cycle of bad schools leading to bad jobs leading to bad schools etc...

Yes, Christianity bids that we uplift the meek and love thy neighbor. Jesus would never consider someone he helped as being inferior, and he was the son of god!

Just a bit of hypocrisy I see from many in the religious right. Not all, but many.

The abolitionist movement was a Christian movement, based on the Judeo-Christian belief in the equality of all men of soul before God. Which party's adherents today are more likely to hold this belief?

No, that's just the typically skewed way Republicans see things. For some reason, they see accepting help as being inferior. They don't see that minorities still face racism and class inertia. They refuse to fix the educational systems in inner cities that are funded by local property taxes, setting up a vicious cycle of bad schools leading to bad jobs leading to bad schools etc...

Yes, Christianity bids that we uplift the meek and love thy neighbor. Jesus would never consider someone he helped as being inferior, and he was the son of god!

Just a bit of hypocrisy I see from many in the religious right. Not all, but many.
skewd skewd argah I begin to hate you more every time I read your posts. (I'm not christ here and you annoy the crap out of me most of the time.)
If for instance a young man with a consitant grade of A+ in all of his things were to aplly to a college would they let him in yes, a scholarship probably. if for instance he only has a B average can't he still go to a local colleage most likely, if a young black lad ha a slobering druken father and a broken mother and only manage to make a C he will still be just as likely to be accepted as a white guy with a C would no bias might hurt some but sometimes there happens to be a price to pay for brillance.

skewd skewd argah I begin to hate you more every time I read your posts. (I'm not christ here and you annoy the crap out of me most of the time.)
If for instance a young man with a consitant grade of A+ in all of his things were to aplly to a college would they let him in yes, a scholarship probably. if for instance he only has a B average can't he still go to a local colleage most likely, if a young black lad ha a slobering druken father and a broken mother and only manage to make a C he will still be just as likely to be accepted as a white guy with a C would no bias might hurt some but sometimes there happens to be a price to pay for brillance.

Don't hate me, just disagree with me.

Anyway, much of the antithapy people feel for affirmative action is due to a misunderstanding of how it works. It does NOT mean that you should accept an underqualified person, just because they are a minority. What it does mean is, all things being equal, a certain number of minority candidates should be accepted.

There are certain places where affirmative action is misused, abused or broken. It's a human system, and therefore flawed. Perhaps if someone could offer a better system, we could adopt that. As it is, if we turn a blind eye on class inertia, we develop an almost static underclass, and that's something that I can't accept.

"which party can take credit ..."

none of them!

the real credit belongs as it always does to the defacto
consensus of ALL the people.

however much disharmony and dissaggreement there might be

history is made by each and every individual living in it.

politiceans get up and make a speach
and historians us the dates on which speaches are made
as a conveninet reference.

but every time a political party or leader takes credit
for anything, large numbers of everyday people have already
made it all but officialy a reality.

=^^=
.../\...

isnt it less of a question of democratic or republican, and more of a liberal versus conservative question. thats really my only thought because i am not a history major, and upon rereading this post it is also evident that i am not an english major

Here in the UK it was the Conservative Goverment which were responsible for the abolishion of slavery

The abolitionist movement was a Christian movement, based on the Judeo-Christian belief in the equality of all men of soul before God. Which party's adherents today are more likely to hold this belief?

Remind me to tell you about this bridge I have for sale.

If you actually believe that the judeo-christians are historically known for tolerance and equality, you've obviously been packing your pipe too tight. Maybe the idea is there, perhaps it's given lip-service as a doctrine, but it's very seldom put into practice. That would mean sacrifice on the part of the judeo-christian. Hell, years of missionary work attest to the idea that they thought anyone not from Europe or the US was a primitive in need of educating out of their childish wrong-headedness. That's patronism, not equality of all men.

Remind me to tell you about this bridge I have for sale.

If you actually believe that the judeo-christians are historically known for tolerance and equality, you've obviously been packing your pipe too tight. Maybe the idea is there, perhaps it's given lip-service as a doctrine, but it's very seldom put into practice. That would mean sacrifice on the part of the judeo-christian. Hell, years of missionary work attest to the idea that they thought anyone not from Europe or the US was a primitive in need of educating out of their childish wrong-headedness. That's patronism, not equality of all men.

Prohibition was a Christian movement too.. I'm not saying they can do no wrong, but the abolitionists' motive was as I said before - no other ethical system has developed based on an equality of soul.

Remind me to tell you about this bridge I have for sale.

If you actually believe that the judeo-christians are historically known for tolerance and equality, you've obviously been packing your pipe too tight. Maybe the idea is there, perhaps it's given lip-service as a doctrine, but it's very seldom put into practice. That would mean sacrifice on the part of the judeo-christian. Hell, years of missionary work attest to the idea that they thought anyone not from Europe or the US was a primitive in need of educating out of their childish wrong-headedness. That's patronism, not equality of all men.

Many in the US Senate (republican and democrats) are still in need of education out of their childish wrong headedness

Don't hate me, just disagree with me.

Anyway, much of the antithapy people feel for affirmative action is due to a misunderstanding of how it works. It does NOT mean that you should accept an underqualified person, just because they are a minority. What it does mean is, all things being equal, a certain number of minority candidates should be accepted.

So, that means you approve of basing hiring decisions on skin color? Because that is what happens. We have simply traded the intolerable Jim Crow ideal for the intolerable affirmative action ideal. People are still hired based on skin color and a quota mindset.

"which party can take credit ..."

none of them!

the real credit belongs as it always does to the defacto
consensus of ALL the people...
but every time a political party or leader takes credit
for anything, large numbers of everyday people have already
made it all but officialy a reality.

So the National Guard was required to provide armed escorts to black students why again?

Remind me to tell you about this bridge I have for sale.

If you actually believe that the judeo-christians are historically known for tolerance and equality, you've obviously been packing your pipe too tight. Maybe the idea is there, perhaps it's given lip-service as a doctrine, but it's very seldom put into practice. That would mean sacrifice on the part of the judeo-christian. Hell, years of missionary work attest to the idea that they thought anyone not from Europe or the US was a primitive in need of educating out of their childish wrong-headedness. That's patronism, not equality of all men.

Minor correction. The actions you describe were almost universially undertaken by the Catholics. Abolition was a Protestant thing. Not that Catholics were not involved, but the idea and motion was Protestant.

I went to a party once where some folks had slaves ... nobody freed them, but they didn't want to be freed. It was some party.

affirmative action is the imposition of quotas to say anything else is dishonest.

to attribute discrimination to the judeo/christian culture is more disinformation from the secularist left. without that culture you layabouts would still be in caves.

to attribute discrimination to the judeo/christian culture is more disinformation from the secularist left. without that culture you layabouts would still be in caves.

There's so much wrong with that statement, I don't even know where to begin.

The "manger" that Jesus was born in is a cave, you know.

I'll just leave it at that.

So, that means you approve of basing hiring decisions on skin color? Because that is what happens. We have simply traded the intolerable Jim Crow ideal for the intolerable affirmative action ideal. People are still hired based on skin color and a quota mindset.

Well, it's imperfect, but at least it's better than people NOT being hired because of skin color.

And the "southern strategy" is?

the southern strategy is a particular set of policies and code-words used to appeal to 'culturally conservative' southerners. the republican use of the strategy starts with barry goldwater in 1964, and goes fully into effect with nixon. the basic code-word has always been 'states rights'. before the republicans took advantage of the civil rights split, the democrats had only barely held their coalition of northern liberals and racist southerners together by allowing the southern chunk of the party to rally behind 'states rights' with token support from the northern bit. because the democrats needed them, in the same way the republicans do now. though i've seen numbers recently that say that the southern vote is losing its importance.

Prohibition was a Christian movement too.. I'm not saying they can do no wrong, but the abolitionists' motive was as I said before - no other ethical system has developed based on an equality of soul.

You're joking, right? Or are you sincerely making the claim that no other ethical framework in history has believed in the undeniable equality between all beings?

There's so much wrong with that statement, I don't even know where to begin.

The "manger" that Jesus was born in is a cave, you know.

I'll just leave it at that.
Eh? manger =! cave. I'll just leave it at that.

Eh? manger =! cave. I'll just leave it at that.

Go to Bethlehem and see the spot of Jesus' birth. It's a cave.

The Hebrews didn't build barns, you know. They used caves.

So, to say that us "layabouts would still be in caves" without the Christian culture is completely erroneous and hypocritical.

Not to mention that the majority of Christians up until Justinian were monastic hermits who lived in caves their whole lives.

Cave == Christian culture.

Didn't christianity help lead to the destruction of Rome, the pinnacle of civilization of it's time? And didn't eh church, by putting down a mandate of ignorance, only lengthen and worsten the Dark Ages until the Crusades, in which contact with the middle east was made?

So...technically now...didn't christianity send us BACK to the caves?

Well, the Republicans on slavery, obviously.

But on Civil Rights? Yup. The leader of the move to block, then render useless, the legislation of 1968 were Sen. Gore (the dead one, not the stiff). In fact, 80% of the Republicans supported it, as opposed to about 65% of Democrats.

Shocking.

And for some trivia, name the first three black Senators....can't think of anyone but Carol Mosley Braun?

In order, they were:
Hiram Rhodes Revels, (R -Mississippi) served 1870-1871
Blanche Kelso Bruce, (R -Mississippi) served 1875-1881
Edward William Brooke, III, (R - Massachusetts) served 1967-1979

I just noticed your username. Excellent!!!! I wonder if I can find my copy somewhere.

Af far as civil rights, its the dixiecrats with the horrible reputation in the 20th century. I dont know why it is that so many people today think it is Republicans who are rascists when the truth is quite the opposite.

Didn't christianity help lead to the destruction of Rome, the pinnacle of civilization of it's time?
No.

The republicans were the ones to free the slaves, but they were actually the democrats of our time.

There was an end to civil rights? * :p *

I'd say the party that can take credit is the big ass dance-fest of a kegger that took place right after slavery was abolished.

;)

Af far as civil rights, its the dixiecrats with the horrible reputation in the 20th century. I dont know why it is that so many people today think it is Republicans who are rascists when the truth is quite the opposite.

because the people who voted dixiecrat have mostly switched to voting republican. only the republicans figured out that you could also appease them by supporting "states rights" in terms of outlawing science and discriminating against non-racial minorities. this allows them to avoid some of the strife that the new deal coalition democrats were always under.

I went to a party once where some folks had slaves ... nobody freed them, but they didn't want to be freed. It was some party.

Were you slave or master?

because the people who voted dixiecrat have mostly switched to voting republican. only the republicans figured out that you could also appease them by supporting "states rights" in terms of outlawing science and discriminating against non-racial minorities. this allows them to avoid some of the strife that the new deal coalition democrats were always under.

a) they are hardly representative of the Republican party as whole

b) they arent in office any longer

c) people change with the times. Look at Sen Byrd(D), I think he is the only ex Grand Kleagle(or whatever silly title they use) of the Klan.

a) they are hardly representative of the Republican party as whole

b) they arent in office any longer

c) people change with the times. Look at Sen Byrd(D), I think he is the only ex Grand Kleagle(or whatever silly title they use) of the Klan.

I love the cute names the KKK come up with.
Kluxter, Kleagle and so on.
Although I'd consider becoming racist and facist just for the hope of one day having the title Grand Dragon.
Come to think about it, that sounds like the best Beyblade ever.
Grand Dragoon, one better than Strata Dragoon.
He'd be all white of course and probably have burning cross attack.

Dragoons? I pwn you with Carriers.

Dragoons? I pwn you with Carriers.

I'm talking about Beyblades, not war machines.
You know, with the spinning and the crashing and the round and round and wahey...

In response to the question, I would give the vast majority of the credit to William Lloyd Garrison. He basically decided to stand up and start yelling that slavery was evil and should be abolished, even by force, when more than 95% of the country thought it was just fine and dandy. And he yelled long enough and loud enough, and kept on relocating his paper after it's printing press got burned down by one mob after another, and eventually he swayed much of the (northern) United States. Quite impressive.

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia muses that the Democrats are typically the ones who support the idea that certain races are inferior to others, and therefore need to be compensated for this inferiority to have a chance when competing for admission to college or for jobs.

No, the Democrats state that, due to previous historic events and cultural trends, certain races have been disadvataged by the ruling white class and therefore should be compensated somewhat to help regain the lost ground (which, by the way, minorities are still nowhere close to doing; look at the median incomes of a white family versus a colored or Hispanic one).

affirmative action is the imposition of quotas to say anything else is dishonest.

It is not. If you freaking READ the Supreme Court's decisions on the subject, they specifically state, over and over again, the Affirmative Action is constitutional IF AND ONLY IF it does not, not, not use a quota system. Now I will admit that in some, even many, cases, a quota system has been used, but such practices have been for the most part broken up.

I am not saying you are incorrect; the Supreme Court is.

Oh, did a number of Republicans involved in it skip over to the Democaratic party after Watergate?

Okay, let's forget Watergate. Then you'll have to forget BJgate. Now, in exchange for forgetting Iran-Contra, you have to vote for Kerry though.

:D
You still have Travelgate, Pardongate, FBIFilegate, and Memogate to work out of the Dims' system.

No, the Democrats state that, due to previous historic events and cultural trends, certain races have been disadvataged by the ruling white class and therefore should be compensated somewhat to help regain the lost ground (which, by the way, minorities are still nowhere close to doing; look at the median incomes of a white family versus a colored or Hispanic one).

Isn't it nice to tell poor white folk that because there are more rich white folk than other races, that they deserve to be treated by the government as lower citizens than the poor black folk.

If the government is going to be helping "these poor disadvantaged", how do you honestly consider doing this through racial quantifiers as not racist? or do you think "southern hicks" are treated "well" by society? ><

Isn't it nice to tell poor white folk that because there are more rich white folk than other races, that they deserve to be treated by the government as lower citizens than the poor black folk.

If the government is going to be helping "these poor disadvantaged", how do you honestly consider doing this through racial quantifiers as not racist? or do you think "southern hicks" are treated "well" by society? ><

in america, race is a seperate and specialized form of class. both racial inequalities and class inequalities are bad things and must be dealt with. however, currently, racially created class inequalities are still worse than generalized class inequalities alone. and this is a direct result of special official government and capitalist policies legally in place up to just a few decades ago, on top of all the other older crimes and injustices inflicted upon them.

it isn't about treating anyone as a lower class - that is just spin from people who don't want to deal with either race or class inequalities because they don't think these inequalities are problems at all. if you are really concerned about the plight of poor whites, you need to fight the class system that creates that plight, not the other poor people of a different skin tone who are doing what they can to fight against their own distinct plight. seriously, this is just another version of the divide and conquer strategy of race - same game as always. and until we see through it, they will continue to use it against us and they will continue to win.

Well, it's imperfect, but at least it's better than people NOT being hired because of skin color.

But that is exactly what happens. Not always, but all too often. In order to fill some arbitrary quota, people are promoted for reasons other than ability. No matter who loses, people still are hired, promotes, and fired based on skin color.

There's so much wrong with that statement, I don't even know where to begin.

The "manger" that Jesus was born in is a cave, you know.

I'll just leave it at that.

Cave and manger being mutually exclusive? The point was that almost every invention used today comes from the Western European nations, and America. Who were based on Judeochristian beliefs.

Didn't christianity help lead to the destruction of Rome, the pinnacle of civilization of it's time? And didn't eh church, by putting down a mandate of ignorance, only lengthen and worsten the Dark Ages until the Crusades, in which contact with the middle east was made?

So...technically now...didn't christianity send us BACK to the caves?


Nope. Goth and Visigoth tribes sacked Rome. The empire had moved it's seat of operations to Constanople by then, and remained Eastern Orthodox until Constanople was sacked by Turks. The Pope appointed Carole Mangus as the first Holy Roman Emperor, and he reunited most of Europe. And died. And it split again. But the chuich's position was sealed as the authority from which kings received their authority. Learning stagnated somewhat, as it always does after a major civilization collapses, and was beginning to pick up around 1099, when the first crusade was called. It took another few centuries for the West to get back into the science, but the Crusades had little to do with that. As, you know, we were killing everyone in sight, not holding information swaps.

Nope. Goth and Visigoth tribes sacked Rome. The empire had moved it's seat of operations to Constanople by then, and remained Eastern Orthodox until Constanople was sacked by Turks. The Pope appointed Carole Mangus as the first Holy Roman Emperor, and he reunited most of Europe. And died. And it split again. But the chuich's position was sealed as the authority from which kings received their authority. Learning stagnated somewhat, as it always does after a major civilization collapses, and was beginning to pick up around 1099, when the first crusade was called. It took another few centuries for the West to get back into the science, but the Crusades had little to do with that. As, you know, we were killing everyone in sight, not holding information swaps.

Very good. It amazes me how few people know about our history and heritage. Just when all seems lost, a good post:)

I just noticed your username. Excellent!!!! I wonder if I can find my copy somewhere.

Af far as civil rights, its the dixiecrats with the horrible reputation in the 20th century. I dont know why it is that so many people today think it is Republicans who are rascists when the truth is quite the opposite.

Very good. Also worth a note is that the current administration has the most high ranking African American members, Secy of State Powell, Ntl Security Adviser C. Rice...the current African American Supreme Court justice was appointed by the current president's father, also a Republican president...and the list goes on.

it isn't about treating anyone as a lower class - that is just spin from people who don't want to deal with either race or class inequalities because they don't think these inequalities are problems at all.

There are problems with racial inequality?

Must have missed that despite living here for 6 years.

As for affirmative action, its nothing more than redistribution of wealth, saying that it is not insulting to the dignity of those who accept it is ludicrous, as with any uneeded government handout. If you must redistribute make a proper welfare system, not a racially biased system that rewards people for the color they are.

William Wilberforce (can't find what part he was a member of) born in Hull, thirty years before LIncoln he started all this off...
or did you want to limit this to the US?

There are problems with racial inequality?

context is important. as i said, race is a specialized and distinct form of class in america. and you have to be blind to not see the racially organized class inequality here in terms of access to education, healthcare, employment, housing, etc.

both race-based and general class inequalities are always a problem because they completely destroy any semblance of equality of opportunity, and serve only to reinforce and perpetuate those inequalities.

I don't much care who ended slavery, but I'd like to know who ended civil rights.

I don't much care who ended slavery, but I'd like to know who ended civil rights.

If civil rights had ended, most people posting on here would have already been arrested ;)

the republicans obviously. and the parties that pretty much formed them - the free soilers and the anti-slavery whigs and know-nothings.

none of which map exactly on to the modern democratic or republican parties.

The Republican Party of today is still the Republican Party of Lincoln.
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores.html#1860
This shows the election results by election, a good reference btw.
The Democrat Party tried several times as shown here to change, as conflicts arose between the southerners and northerners. The Republican Party, beginning with Lincoln in 1860, remained the same Republican Party to this date.

The Republican Party of today is still the Republican Party of Lincoln.
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores.html#1860
This shows the election results by election, a good reference btw.
The Democrat Party tried several times as shown here to change, as conflicts arose between the southerners and northerners. The Republican Party, beginning with Lincoln in 1860, remained the same Republican Party to this date.
I don't follow.

1) How does that prove anything...

2) You're arguing that political ideologies have not changed an ounce since 1865?