Surely the Party of Lincoln will have no objections to this.

spongeboob: xanadian: Why should we care what an old band from Sweden thinks?

John McCsin was a fan or he wasn't
IDK that was back in 2008

Sen. John McCain apologized Wednesday for not having called for the removal of the Confederate battle flag from the South Carolina Statehouse when he campaigned in the state's Republican presidential primary, saying he had compromised his principles out of political self-interest.
McCain, who built his presidential quest on a reputation for candor and patriotism, said he had equivocated on the flag issue because he feared that if his true feelings had been known they would have undermined his effort to wrest the nomination from Gov. George W. Bush of Texas.
McCain said in the campaign that the divisive issue should be left to the state, as had Bush, who stood by the position Wednesday.
In a subdued speech at a luncheon a stone's throw from the Capitol where the Confederate battle flag flies, McCain, a former Navy war hero whose ancestors fought for the South, indicted himself for a lapse in honor.
"I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary," McCain said. "So I chose to compromise my principles. I broke my promise to always tell the truth."

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2000-04-20-0004200168-story.html

Why would he worry about pro-Confederate voters turning against him a Republican primary election?  That's so weird!

dywed88: Shaggy_C: dywed88: Shaggy_C: whidbey: We didn't actually Reconstruct, is the reason.

The South should have been beaten down to absolute nothing.

Because Republicans were more concerned about winning power in the short term than they were in doing the right thing. Even when they were on the right side of history they were already doing the same shiat they do today.

No. It wasn't short term thinking.

It was that a large portion of the anti-slavery crowd were all for discrimination and denying rights to black people, they were just opposed to slavery. And with slavery a non-issue (and secession crushed), there was no reason for them not to align with the Confederates to push their other political goals.

Ackshually...the Republicans made a deal to end the occupation of the south and effectively turn over the former slaves to their former masters, all so they could have the presidency in 1876.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

Without that we may have had reconstructed properly.

Which was necessary because of the split on the party following the Civil War due to the uniting force of slavery being gone.

There was simply no way thay the pre-Civil War coalition could hold together in the aftermath since the one thing that united them was no longer an issue.

Wait, you're saying that the National Black Republican Association lied about history?

"The Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877 was an attempt by Republicans to end the presidential election stalemate, as well as get the Democrats to stop the lynchings and respect the rights of blacks. Contrary to popular belief, President Rutherford Hayes did not remove the last federal troops from the South, but merely ordered federal troops surrounding the South Carolina and Louisiana statehouses to return to their barracks."

http://blackrepublican.blogspot.com/p/history-of-civil-rights-in-nutshell.html

/Apparently, Frances Rice believes that Reconstruction never actually ended.
//Do you think someone would just go on the internet and lie like that?
///s

dywed88: Shaggy_C: dywed88: Shaggy_C: whidbey: We didn't actually Reconstruct, is the reason.

The South should have been beaten down to absolute nothing.

Because Republicans were more concerned about winning power in the short term than they were in doing the right thing. Even when they were on the right side of history they were already doing the same shiat they do today.

No. It wasn't short term thinking.

It was that a large portion of the anti-slavery crowd were all for discrimination and denying rights to black people, they were just opposed to slavery. And with slavery a non-issue (and secession crushed), there was no reason for them not to align with the Confederates to push their other political goals.

Ackshually...the Republicans made a deal to end the occupation of the south and effectively turn over the former slaves to their former masters, all so they could have the presidency in 1876.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

Without that we may have had reconstructed properly.

Which was necessary because of the split on the party following the Civil War due to the uniting force of slavery being gone.

There was simply no way thay the pre-Civil War coalition could hold together in the aftermath since the one thing that united them was no longer an issue.

Seriously though, there's a couple of good books about what happened:


In 1892, after years of effort, frustration, and intraparty strife, the Republican party dramatically abandoned the Negro and thus its hopes of developing a two-party South. Given the fact that from its very inception the Republicans were wedded to the status of the Negro, what factors motivated this abandonment? Stanley P. Hirshson's work offers some pertinent answers to this complex question. Beginning with the post-Reconstruction days, and carrying his work to the 1890's, Hirshson traces Republican policies and attitudes regarding two terribly intricate and related problems, i.e., the Negro and Southern questions. It is the issue of the Negro which primarily concerns Hirshson, and his thesis is abundantly clear: the Negro was at first used as a vehicle witii which to build a strong Republican organization in the South, and when that policy reaped few dividends he was deserted. The humanitarianism and concern for the Negro which had been an integral part of the driving force of the Republican party-a force which produced the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth Amendments , and the Freedmen's Bureau Bills-soon spent itself or else gave way to economic and political issues. By the early 1890's, the Negro was abandoned to face the power of the Bourbon Democrats and the lower-class whites. This desertion, Hirshson plausibly argues, was due in large measure to rising capitalistic forces. Businessmen, merchants, industrialists, and others either engaged in Southern trade or deeply interested in the economic expansion of the South, constantly pressured party leaders to ignore or bypass the Negro. Deeply threatened by possible revenue losses in the Southern market, these economic interests advocated the protective tariff as a means to bring about a dynamic Republican party in the South.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/415507




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadir_of_American_race_relations