Quote:
Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, dumbass, I said Byrd could have been a virulent racist in 1865 and still have fought on the Union side, making Dodd's statement accurate even if Byrd is an unreconstructed bigot in 2004. Some of the most prominent Northern abolitionists were virulent racists. Also, I don't think it's necessary to surmise that he would have joined the Klan in 1865. The Klan was a reaction to Reconstruction, which was farther-reaching than the Emancipation Proclamation (which, I'll note, didn't even apply to W.Va.). His membership in the Klan in the 1940s would meant something different than (1) fighting for the Confederacy or (2) membership in the Klan when it was founded.
|
inverse numbskull. the appopriate reaction to dodd's statement should be through the prism of the average person hearing the quote, should it not? the average Joe wouldn't have heard Dodd's statement and found it benign because he knew:
Some of the most prominent Northern abolitionists were virulent racists. Also, I don't think it's necessary to surmise that he would have joined the Klan in 1865. The Klan was a reaction to Reconstruction, which was farther-reaching than the Emancipation Proclamation (which, I'll note, didn't even apply to W.Va.). His membership in the Klan in the 1940s would meant something different than (1) fighting for the Confederacy or (2) membership in the Klan when it was founded
and as to the statement being "accurate," what does that have to do with it. dodd's statement is okay, because if Byrd would have been a WVa. Senator in '63 he'd have supported the war. Lott's was wrong because the country wouldn't have been better off. So the difference is accuracy, not degree of stupidity? Please.
2 people said 2 stupid things about guys who were racists. from a precedental view, this may not be on all fours, but you got to admit you'd cite it in the brief, and not as contrary authority.
