Trump may be what Grant was for Lincoln's America

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by goodman0422

It could be suggested that any group of people who were enslaved could be grateful to the people who freed them regardless of color.

America was not the birthplace of slavery. Slavery was not invented by white people. Black people were not the only slaves. Most, in fact almost all, African slaves were captured by other Africans.
Slavery was the norm for all of recorded history, and probably long before. Almost all civilizations made slaves of other people. Although it it officially illegal, slavery still exists. This is not to condone it. This is to contextualize it. It was an atrocity. Some people in America realized this and ended it. How many centuries should it take for these wounds to hèal?

So true. They should apportion "guilt" like in a civil trial. England, Spain, France, and Portugal will bear the greatest burden. The U.S. only had slavery for 84 years (and the legal importation of slaves ended under Jefferson) and paid a high price to end the practice championed by the democrats.

[JD Barleycorn]

The OP is correct about Grant's administration. Grant was honest, his friends weren't. What a Hillary administration by compared to....Capone's Chicago?

[Old-T]

The Democratic party goes back to 1620? I didn't realize that.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by Old-T

That depends a lot on how they were treated during those centuries. Separate but equal. KKK. Jim Crow. Yes, people will be grateful to the people who freed them--but when the same skin color was beating and lynching them, it is often difficult to tell who is who. And when things like this:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/loc..._report_a_hoax

happen, again it makes it hard. That is no different than the Duke lacrosse situation. Black and white both have a majority of good people, but both have some vocal, angry bigots. And each side tends to see the bigots of the opposite color more readily, precisely because the bigots are louder and more obnoxious.

Separate but equal has been given a bad name because some of it was executed poorly. If done properly, both groups would be better off separate but equal, with no more burning racial grievances to continually inflame.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by DSK

Separate but equal has been given a bad name because some of it was executed poorly. If done properly, both groups would be better off separate but equal, with no more burning racial grievances to continually inflame.

"Good ideas" always depend upon how they are executed, I agree with you there.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by DSK

Separate but equal has been given a bad name because some of it was executed poorly. If done properly, both groups would be better off separate but equal, with no more burning racial grievances to continually inflame.

executed poorly? how do you mean? application was uneven?

you mean like some areas worked like it should but other areas didn't do to the blantant racism and lack of material support from the state.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by Old-T

The Democratic party goes back to 1620? I didn't realize that.

Don't go democrat. You may have trouble getting the other half of your brain back. The country has only been around since 1787.