You win the prize, charrison, that's one of the most disingeuous postings I've ever seen.
Lincoln certainly ushered in the correction of the foul stench of slavery and of course most early voting blacks voted Republican and were elected as Republicans. But the 1960s GOP was not the party of Lincoln . . . unless of course Lincoln would have celebrated Jefferson Davis. Southern whites from all political stripes systematically denied the right to vote to blacks and b/c blacks were disproportionately Republican the GOP was decimated in the South. Accordingly, Helms, Gramm, Dole, Thurmond, Hollings, and Lott's racist mentor (Colmer?) were ALL Democrats b/c it was essentially the only party in the South. And if you were not registered as a Democrat you did NOT get to vote.
The legislative forebearers to the most identifiable opponents to civil rights legislation (1960s Republicans) were Democrats when Lincoln was alive and continued to be Democrats through the first half of the 20th century. It was indeed Truman (Democrat) who set the stage for Thurmond (Democrat) to leave the party and take his racist buddies with him to the REPUBLICAN party.
As for the 3/5ths clause, your author is definitely distorting history. The racist South wanted representation for people that it didn't even consider worthy of basic human rights. The racist North (and abolitionists) did not want to empower the South. To contend the 3/5ths clause is anti-abolition is ridiculous. The majority which agreed to the 3/5ths clause did not grant any rights to blacks and it certainly was not substantiation of the MORAL opposition to the practice.
Most people are ignorant of our history as a nation. They don't understand that Abe to Teddy to the Gipper is not a distinct family tree of GOP leaders. The party of Lincoln has nothing in common with the GOP of the civil rights era. Teddy left the GOP to create the Bull Moose. Reagan (while not a racist by Southern GOP standards) does represent the modern ideology of the GOP when it comes to civil rights; ie not a strong supporter.
If I didn't know any better I might be convinced by the dribble you provided. Regardless, I've saved it to my desktop and will share it with my friends . . . they need a good laugh. Yet, it is disappointing that people in the name of partisanship would distort our nation's history to fit their ideology. I had no qualms about being a young Republican b/c I knew 19th century history well. As I've come to understand 20th century history and the ugliness embodied by Southern Republicans (who used to be Democrats) it is easy to reject the GOP as long as the strenghth of the party remains in the South.
Lincoln certainly ushered in the correction of the foul stench of slavery and of course most early voting blacks voted Republican and were elected as Republicans. But the 1960s GOP was not the party of Lincoln . . . unless of course Lincoln would have celebrated Jefferson Davis. Southern whites from all political stripes systematically denied the right to vote to blacks and b/c blacks were disproportionately Republican the GOP was decimated in the South. Accordingly, Helms, Gramm, Dole, Thurmond, Hollings, and Lott's racist mentor (Colmer?) were ALL Democrats b/c it was essentially the only party in the South. And if you were not registered as a Democrat you did NOT get to vote.
The legislative forebearers to the most identifiable opponents to civil rights legislation (1960s Republicans) were Democrats when Lincoln was alive and continued to be Democrats through the first half of the 20th century. It was indeed Truman (Democrat) who set the stage for Thurmond (Democrat) to leave the party and take his racist buddies with him to the REPUBLICAN party.
As for the 3/5ths clause, your author is definitely distorting history. The racist South wanted representation for people that it didn't even consider worthy of basic human rights. The racist North (and abolitionists) did not want to empower the South. To contend the 3/5ths clause is anti-abolition is ridiculous. The majority which agreed to the 3/5ths clause did not grant any rights to blacks and it certainly was not substantiation of the MORAL opposition to the practice.
Most people are ignorant of our history as a nation. They don't understand that Abe to Teddy to the Gipper is not a distinct family tree of GOP leaders. The party of Lincoln has nothing in common with the GOP of the civil rights era. Teddy left the GOP to create the Bull Moose. Reagan (while not a racist by Southern GOP standards) does represent the modern ideology of the GOP when it comes to civil rights; ie not a strong supporter.
If I didn't know any better I might be convinced by the dribble you provided. Regardless, I've saved it to my desktop and will share it with my friends . . . they need a good laugh. Yet, it is disappointing that people in the name of partisanship would distort our nation's history to fit their ideology. I had no qualms about being a young Republican b/c I knew 19th century history well. As I've come to understand 20th century history and the ugliness embodied by Southern Republicans (who used to be Democrats) it is easy to reject the GOP as long as the strenghth of the party remains in the South.