Gonna make for some good flip-flopper campaign ads.

Maybe it was a rope-a-dope all along?

Where's my comment dude?

I'm not a big fan of lynching pics, despite what Mr. James Walcott might think. It is interesting that I only tend to have that problem when leftists link in.

A good thing I'm not Michael Steele, I suppose.

Cracker. Is it too late for the south to secede? Barefoot and stupid... Hee Haw!

I'm not a big fan of lynching pics, despite what Mr. James Walcott might think.

Well... you gotta admit, the whole Confederacy/Klan/CCC/lynching nexus would certainly tend to make that noose on your front page tasteless. Of course, if you're willing to cop to tastelessness, then you can avoid all those nasty lynch mob inferences.

It is interesting that I only tend to have that problem when leftists link in.

And blacks. But, then, they wouldn't be part of your "target demographic," now would they?

A good thing I'm not Michael Steele, I suppose.

That's true. The open contempt in which black Marylanders hold Steele doesn't matter to you, as you're not running for Governor.

But that does beg the question-- would he approve of your logo? I wonder if he has read the Turner Diaries, and the Day of the Rope?

It's Wolcott, not Walcott, and your blog sucks ass.

Actually, FB, the whole "Klan/lynching thing" as you put it, was a construct of Democrats trying to keep blacks from voting for the Republicans.

The fact that you can quote the Turner Diaries chapter and verse is more than a little frightening.

Isn't it amusing that you can almost always tell the leftists from the personal attacks devoid of substance?

I do apologize to Mr. Wolcott for misspelling his name, but is isn't like he is someone I would normally read.

It's clear that Atlas is not holding her breast and it's a stretch (so to speak) to turn a picture of a noose into some kind of endorsement of lynching. Wolcott also takes a shot at churchgoers; Glenn Reynolds has never struck me as religious, but why let facts interfere when you're insulting "wingnuts"? Wolcott spits a lot of cleverly worded vituperation that has nothing to do with reality. About par for a leftist.

CY -

You're correct that southern racists were Democrats. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so here's a bit of recent history you may not be aware of: Those racist Democrats are now Republicans, boyo. It's called the Southern Strategy, and it's complete. The modern Republican Party is now home to that former strand of Democratic politics. But don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your adolescent preening about leftists being mean to you.

Your blog sucks.

Aw, you hurt my feelings...

After the Civil Rights Act was pushed through, exactly two Dixecrats (Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms) became Republicans. All the rest of the segregationalist Democrats that composed the Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic party, including John C. Stennis, James O. Eastland, Robert "Sheets" Byrd, Klan lawyer and defender Horace C. Wilkinson, and literally dozens more.

To this day the Democratic Party practices strict racism, to the point that you consider any non-Democrat black a race traitor. Comments by liberal Democrats just weeks ago prove that point beyond a doubt.

No other group is expected to vote a certain way based upon their skin color, nor is attacked so roundly for holding an independent or conflicting viewpoint.You've trade physcial chains for ideological ones, but you are still the racists the Democratic Party has ALWAYS been.

Those racist Democrats are now Republicans"

Actually, those racist Democrats are now dead. You do realize that this is 2005 right? The Civil Rights act passed 40+ years ago. The bus boycott was 50+ years ago. I doubt that the southern Republicans are getting too may votes from 70-80 year old kluxers. Its a new generation of partriotic southerner that drives the politics now.

Take your poorly thought out talking points somewhere where people can't do subtraction.

Tob

Murtha is calling for immediate withdrawal of American troops from Irag.

It's a turning point. But let's hear the wisecracks, from a safe, combat-free distance, of course.

Hey, John Murtha, I'm hip. Get 'em out. The risk is too great that some draft-age Republicans might be shamed into joining up.

They must stay free, not to combat terrorism but to fight for tax cuts.

"It's a turning point. But let's hear the wisecracks, from a safe, combat-free distance, of course."

Ask and ye shall receive ;-)

Isn't Murtha a Penn. Democrat? A Democrat caling for preemptive surrender is nothing new.

Although, truthfully, he is mostly a hawk. As I read him, he wants us to use greater force or give up. I can agree with the first but must disagree with the secound.

Tob

Tob, I just emailed Senator Byrd's office with condolences.

I'll also contact the families of Kweisi Mfume, Lisa A. Gladden, Salima Siler Marriott, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton and all the other openly racist Democrats in the Democratric Party today that you seem to think are dead.

Black Americans should not be forced to vote for one party by the color of their skin, but be allowed to choose freely their own desires, based upon the content of their own characters.

I wrote that several weeks ago regarding the race-bating bigots in the Maryland Democratic Party, the same ones that Howard Dean will still not apologize for.

Conservatives have been wrong in the past about race issues and as you say, most of them are probably dead now.

What is your excuse?

LOL! While its true you don't have to be dead to be a racist Democrat, they do pretty much have to be dead for this to be true: "You're correct that southern racists were Democrats. You don't strike me as particularly bright, so here's a bit of recent history you may not be aware of: Those racist Democrats are now Republicans, boyo." Byrd notwithstanding, the civil rights era is not "a bit of recent history" Pete's just a part of the hive-mind, spouting whatever is the current buzz (or in this case, the buzz from 20 years ago).

I'm more impressed with the way the electorial success of Republicans tracks with the dying-off of the old segs and their replacement with inclusive Republicans in the South.

Tob

"After the Civil Rights Act was pushed through, exactly two Dixecrats (Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms) became Republicans."

I think there are more than 2 people in the south who switched from voting for LBJ's party to voting for Dick Nixon's party.

Actus, I think it was rahter obvious from the politicians I named, that I was speaking about--get this--politicians.

Aw... and you just lost another one.

Notice it took Demcratic Party Leader Tim Shea just seconds to completly turn on Derrick Wallace, insulting his intelligence with:

"I'm a little confused. Are we talking about the National Association for the Advancement of Construction Professionals -- or Colored People?"

You see, the colored fella strayed off the plantation, and overseer Shea has to "whip up onst" him. Can't have the Folks getting all upppity and thinking for themselves, now, can we?

Thanks to Republicans, at least the beating now is only verbal.

"I think there are more than 2 people in the south who switched from voting for LBJ's party to voting for Dick Nixon's party."

Actus, a seeming good point there and one that I had intended to address in my screed. Some people switched from the Dem's to the Republicans but I see no trend that it was the racists. Even the victory of Nixon (which was a squeeker if I recall, made possible only by the third-party run by Wallace, an avowed seggy) didn't herald any kind of realignment in the south. Its Reagan that moved the numbers, or actually, the Democratic party that did. McGovern and then Carter drove the middle-class working man from the party. The Republicans were just the lucky recipents being the opposition party at the time.

I think that its about time we drove a stake into the heart of this old canard. There are, to my knowledge at least, no segregationist officials in the Republican party. (I discount David Duke as the party repudiates him at every opportunity) Indeed, the party pushes hard for any minority participation. Some may suggest that this is only political, since the day that the Dems only get 7 of 10 black votes will be the day they implode, I like to think that its honest effort.

Tob

Bush has an approval rating of 2% among black voters.

Much better rope pictures here. Use one of these next time, CY:

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/african/2000/lynching.htm

"Bush has an approval rating of 2% among black voters."

So you think his chances of a third term are diminished?

Tob

Those are some nasty photos JR. Of course, when I read the attached stories, I realized the lynchers were Dem's so I guess that, in some parties, the more things change the more they stay the same.

Tob

Why is it that there are never racist comments on this blog until liberals show up? Get linked by a lefty, and the quality of the discourse goes down, and the level of undistilled hate goes up.

you really are being dishonest saying you are a yankee, considering you are a southern redneck.
don't you need to go do your cousin?
Also, love all of the "new technologies" that have come from the south recently. Specifically, the computers we all enjoy-all from horrible blue cities like San Francisco, silicon valley, Seattle and that awful city of Boston where there are excellent colleges-colleges that the Bush family attended-what traitors.
I heard East Carolina has an excellent program for basket weaving though, sorry to hear you dropped out.

Well, Rebel my boy, I've alwayse believed that one should "know one's enemies," so learning about the Turner Diaries and other bits of trivia simply make good sense.

If that's frightening, good.

I presume that Mr. Reagan's opening of his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi on a theme of "State's Rights" had nothing to do with the history of that benighted town and state (er, for those of you historically challenged, that was the town famous for the murder of civil rights workers Cheney, Goodman and Schwerner).

Need I mention David Duke?

And by the way, how many black Republicans are there in elected office? Versus how many black Democrats? Could that have anything to do with the Republican tendency to avoid support of their black candidates? Or the southern tendency to avoid voting for black candidates? Whatever happened to JC Watts?

Just curious, you know.

Oh, I almost forgot:
Actually, FB, the whole "Klan/lynching thing" as you put it, was a construct of Democrats trying to keep blacks from voting for the Republicans.

Uh, no. The whole "Klan/lynching thing" was a construct of SOUTHERN WHITES to keep blacks from VOTING AT ALL.

There's no need to invoke "partei" when the simple Jim Crow racism of southern whites is quite sufficient to explain the phenomenon.

The whole "Klan/lynching thing" was a construct of SOUTHERN WHITES to keep blacks from VOTING AT ALL.

You're actually mixing your history. The original Klan was a direct offshoot of the Democratic Party in the American South, and was expressly formed to do three things: put down the Reconstruction effort, intimidate the Republican Party, keep southern blacks from voting. The Democratic Klan murdered 1,300 Republicans in 1868 alone, according to Wikipedia.

The original Klan was the most murderous offshoot of an American political party I'm familiar with, and they are solidly Democrat.

The second Klan (again, pulling from Wikipedia) was created, "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat!" said Thomas Dixon, the man who wrote the book and play "The Clansmen" which inspired "The Birth of a Nation." Actors dressed as Klansmen were hired to ride up and down the streets during the Los Angeles premiere.

"The Birth of a Nation" quotes heavily from Woodrow Wilson's book History of the American People, so a strong argument could be made that the Democratic President from New Jersey is the man most responsible for the Second KKK.

After seeing the film on February 18, 1915, Wilson stated, "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

The 1924 Democratic National Convention several years later in New York City was known as "the Klanbake Convention."

Other Klans formed after WWII. It was in North Carolina in 1958 that people began to fight back against the Klan when hundreds of armed Lumbees (white indians that some claim are the descendents of the Lost Colony, but that is another story) routed them.

The Klan's history in the Civil Rights era is well known, and I do not need to repeat it. Its poltical power died on the national stage after Demo/Dixiecrats famously lost their last bid for segregation. West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd is the last vestige of the Klan still on the national stage.

Today's groups claiming the name of the Klan are mostly in name only, belonging to fragments, isolated groups thought to number merely a few thousand in ultra-right wing groups.

The Klan that exists in in our national conscious, the Klan that Wolcott alluded to in his sick lynching fantasy, the only Klan to hold political power, was solidly Democrat, and murderously anti-Republican.

History lesson over.

Boston,

Am I a redneck? If you used Foxworthy's defintion of a redneck as "the glorious absensce of sophistication," then yes, I suppose I am. I know the sophisticates of the world, and I have largely rejected them and their ideologies. I feel much more at home among NC soldiers and NY firefighters and my other paycheck-to-paycheck friends than I ever have with the isolated and usually clueless academic and media elites that you cling to like a tick.

But as to the subject of tehcnology: Dude, are you getting a Dell?

If so, you're getting it from Greensboro, North Carolina's state of the art facility. How about the excellent Thinkpad laptops? Right here in Raleigh. As matter of fact, both Silicon Valley and Silicon Alley (New York City) have consistently lost jobs to the Research Triangle Park here in NC, which boasts some of the best R&D in America and the highest per capita concentration of PhDs of anywhere on the planet.

Enjoy your outrageous taxes, bitter ethnic segregation, gang violence, and brutal winters.

I'll take the sun.

Damn. That's astounding. You're amazing. It wasn't to keep blacks in their place and away from any political power, but it was simply a means to keep Republicans from attaining any foothold in the South.

That's a wonderful bunch of historical detail you've provided, but you seem to miss the bottom line issue:

BLACK people were lynched by WHITE people simply because they were BLACK. For you to put the Stars and Bars together with a hangman's noose REMAINS in poor taste at the least, and an advertisement for white supremacy at worst.

Bugger Republicans and Democrats (we can talk about the level of power and authority exercised by black people in either party), but that noose, in conjunction with the American Swastika is a symbol of murderous evil. And dude, you don't seem to even realize it.

FB, you just can't let a little thing like the historical record get in your way, can you? As I stated quite clearly before:

The original Klan was a direct offshoot of the Democratic Party in the American South, and was expressly formed to do three things: put down the Reconstruction effort, intimidate the Republican Party, keep southern blacks from voting. The Democratic Klan murdered 1,300 Republicans in 1868 alone, according to Wikipedia.

The history of a Ku Klux Klan birthed from the Democratic Party is written in blood, and posted above. The Democratic Party just didn't create the Klan, it resurrected it from death, using nothing less than a sitting Democratic president to do so.

Like many liberals, you want to rewrite history to suit your own needs.

Blacks were not lynched "simply because they were black," they were lynched over power. They were lynched because southern Democrats were afraid of losing power to northern Republicans and newly freed slaves. Yes, thousands of blacks were lynched by your ideological forefathers, but so were many white Republicans, and immigrants from other foreign shores.

The "American swastika"--the real American swastika of native Americans and many other ancient cultures--was not a sign of hate, but a sign of life. Your lack of knowledge is impressive.

"Confederate Yankee" was chosen to be the name of this blog for a multitude of reasons. I am a native of North Carolina with a New York bride, and I have spent many happy years in both states. I enjoy the culture and history of each, and I celebrate them both. With Confederate Yankee chosen as the name of this site, symbols of both American cultures were decided upon, with the flags of the two former warring but now united cultures being the rather obvious choice.

The flags used in the background of the "Confederate Yankee" cutout text in the masthead were the flags of USA and CSA from 1865, right before the two warring nations came together once more.

The US flag backing the word "Confederate" had all 34 stars for all the states that then existed when the war began in 1861. Even after the Confederate States succeeded, Lincoln would not allow their stars to be removed from the field of blue, for he knew their rightful home, and sought to have them return.

The CSA flag backing the word "Yankee" came from the third and final flag of the Confederate States of America, created March 4, 1865. To me it symbolizes defiance in the face of overwhelming odds and the pure grit of a land of people incredibly brave and gracious. This flag, with 13 stars in the top left corner over bars of blue on red, over a field of white with a red border, was never a symbol of racism. Democratic Klansman led by former CSA General and first Grand Dragon Nathan Bedford Forrest, tied the Confederate Navy Jack to hatred. Of course, that is your flag, not mine.

Nor was this post the first time I've used that exact image of a rope tied in a noose. I used it here on the event of Howard Dean's ascension to the chairmanship of the Democratic Nation Committee, with the sarcastic admonition that:

You've got to love a party whose platform includes a trapdoor with a quick-release.

That comment has nothing even vaguely to do with race. Nor did this post. No, intent was ascribed t to an image by a aging, effete bigot, and you simply took his word to be gospel, without any critical thinking or reasoning on your part. I guess I should thank both you and Wolcott and other liberals for proving my original point.

Given enough rope, liberals certainly get hung by the truth.

I've no need to rewrite history, thank you very much.

I've read enough to know exactly why your beloved Confederacy left the Union in 1860 (a hint: it was about slavery).

I'm old enough to remember when Lyndon Johnson's Democrats "lost the south for a generation" when they passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (which, incidentally, prompted Strom Thurmond to leave the Democratic Party and join the Republicans).

I'm not so naive as to believe that Mr. Reagan started his run for the White House in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi because of the lovely scenery. I don't believe David Duke chose a Republican affiliation in error.

That white Southerners have become the bulwark of the Republican party is a thing of fact, not conjecture.

That there was a "Southern Strategy" on the part of the Republican Party to achieve political dominance is again, a thing of fact. (Otherwise, the chairman of the RNC wouldn't have been moved to apologize for it, now would he?)

Would you have us believe that a culture that would sacrifice its sons to war to protect its right to human chattel slavery has changed so drastically that it now embraces those it once enslaved? That it seeks to empower those it once fought to disempower?

Oh. Of course you would.

And having the Stars and Bars with a hangman's noose on your page has nothing to do with race.

I've tried to show reason. I've explained things quite clearly, but of my own position, and that of your bigoted Democrat ancestors.

Was slavery one of the reasons for seccession? Certainly. Rich slave-holding Democrats did push the war for their primary reason, but that is not the reason most of our ancestors fought. Most did not own slaves, and indeed, many white southerns were little more than slaves themseves as sharecroppers. Poor white and black southerners had far more in common with each other than they did rich white southerners.

Most soldiers fought for family and community. They saw the state as their great allegience, not a nation. They fought for pride and independence, not slavery. That is why 50,000 blacks served in the Confederate States armies, as laborors and soldiers, both slave and free.

But that isn't the complex picture of the real world you want to see.

You want to creat a miracle where overnight, 200+ years of Democrat-led Klan racism suddenly turned into Republican racism becuase Ronald Reagan gave a speech in Mississippi. Sorry, but life is more complicated than that.

It is quite obvious to any reasonable person that a post about giving politicians "enough rope to hang themselves" is a bit of dramatic license talking about suicidal poltical acts, not a call for murder.

That simple truth is just to logical a thought to follow for someone so blinded by hatred. Good riddance.

Did you mean yourself when you said, "blinded by hatred" or the lynch mobs who used the referenced rope to kill black people? I'm just trying to hash things out. Natch.