Skip to comments.Reminder: Democrats ran the KKK, started the Civil War, celebrated slavery and fought against
Posted on 07/29/2019 8:44:07 AM PDT by ransomnote
Full Title: Reminder: Democrats ran the KKK, started the Civil War, celebrated slavery and fought against the Civil Rights Act
(NationalSentinel) For all of its existence, the American Democrat Party has stood for distinctly anti-American principles and values, but thanks to a fully co-opted “mainstream media” that serves as the party’s propaganda division, far too many citizens don’t know that.
For instance, they don’t know that the Democrat Party, only recently, “embraced” minorities, seemed to embrace true “equality,” and began vocalizing support for civil rights – all positions the party vehemently and consciously opposed for more than 200 years.
As noted by Prof. Carol Swain, who teaches political science at Vanderbilt University, the Democrat Party defended slavery, actually started the Civil War, founded the Ku Klux Klan, and battled against every single major civil rights act in our country’s history.
In a video she narrated for PragerU Swain, who is black, begins:
When you think about racial equality and civil rights, which political party comes to mind – the Republicans or the Democrats? Most people would probably say the Democrats. But this answer is incorrect. Since its founding in 1829, the Democratic Party has fought against every major civil rights initiative and has a long history of discrimination
Swain’s report is particularly relevant in today’s political environment as the far Left, which is taking over the Democrat Party, seeks to not only hide the party’s history but brand the GOP as the party of racists, bigots, homophobes, and authoritarians – led by POTUS Donald Trump, whose own very public history is one of racial equality and harmony, not of bigotry and hate.
Now you’ve gone and done it!
When the US flag has already made up it's mind to start shooting at you, it is rather a done deal at that point. When Lincoln sent warships with orders to use force to impose his will on Charleston, the US flag engaged in a belligerent act.
Of course, I wouldn't put myself in the position of just declaring myself to be a different country now and then be surprised when the government doesn't simply accept that.
They just should have done it earlier before the Northern power became so strong that they could simply ignore consent of the governed.
So what do you want to do about it? Declare them invalid?
I didn't suggest anything be done about it, what I specifically asked for is an honest opinion about whether or not this methodology of using military troops to force people to vote as Washington DC directs is a valid constitutional amendment process in your opinion.
Since you deliberately dodged the question, It would appear that you do not, but are loath to admit it.
The Indians were not their kith and kin. The Indians were not the people with whom they had created a government based on an acknowledged right to independence.
What the various European descended peoples did to the Indians was terrible, but doing terrible things to the Indians was not justification for doing terrible things to your own people and family.
Im not a slave, and youre not my massa. Just cause I don’t follow your dictates doesnt mean the task is difficult. You already know the names.
"What I do say is, that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Peoria, Illinois" (October 16, 1854), p. 266.
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, "Letter to Albert G. Hodges" (April 4, 1864), p. 281.
"Now, I confess myself as belonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social and political evil, having due regard for its actual existence amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrown about it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the prevention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it may come to an end." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Lincoln-Douglas Debate at Galesburg" (October 7, 1858), p. 226.
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1858), p. 376.
"I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any abolitionist." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Speech at Chicago, Illinois" (July 10, 1858), p. 492.
And these beliefs put him,morally, head and shoulders above any confederate leader, and most Americans of the day.
Unlike our founding fathers though the confederacy got their asses kicked by the US Army. So they are a footnote in history and should be treated as such. The confederate leaders don't deserve to polish the boots of our great founding fathers. The confederates were also fighting for a horrible cause, the enslavement of other humans. No matter how much you want to believe in your addled brain that it was over money.
"The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true." Ulysses S. Grant
That was much better than my reply. I salute you sir.
So let's look at what these "peaceful" secessionist were doing up until that point.
State of Alabama: On 3 January 1861 Governor A. B. Moore directed the Alabama militia to seize the Mount Vernon Arsenal and Forts Morgan and Gaines, which controlled the entrance to Mobile Bay. The Arsenal was seized on the 4th, and the two forts a day later. Alabama didnt succeed from the Union until 11 January.
State of Arkansas: On 8 February 1861 Arkansas militia volunteer companies seized the Little Rock Arsenal at the direction of the governor. On 6 May the Arkansas Secession Convention passed the states Ordnance of Secession. The Convention elected not to submit the Ordnance to the people of Arkansas in a referendum for their approval.
State of Florida: On 6 January 1861 the Florida militia seized the U.S. arsenal at Apalachicola, the sole Federal arsenal in the state. On 7 January the Florida militia seized Fort Marion at St. Augustine. And, on 8 January Federal troops at Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to the harbor at Pensacola, fired on a party of Florida militia who had demanded the surrender of that fort. The next day, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer gathered the 50 men in his company from Forts Barrancas and McRee, dumped 20,000 pounds of gunpowder into the bay, and spiked his guns at those two forts. With the help of sailors from the Warrington Navy Yard, he moved all of his remaining supplies across the bay to Fort Pickens, which the Federal Army retained for the balance of the war. On 10 January the Florida Secession Convention passed the states Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of Florida for their approval in a referendum.
State of Georgia: The Georgia Secession Convention passed its ordnance of secession on 19 January 1861 and the state withdrew from the Union. The Georgia militia seized the Augusta Arsenal on 24 January, and on the 27th Oglethorpe Barracks and Fort James Jackson at Savanah were also seized. In response to a demand from the state government for surrender of the Arsenal, Captain Arnold Elzey, the commander, had asked the War Department for instructions. Acting Secretary of War Holt had responded on 23 January that The governor of Georgia has assumed against your post and the United States an attitude of war. His summons is harsh and preemptory. It is not expected that your defense shall be desperate. If forced to surrender by violence or starvation you will stipulate for honorable terms and a free passage by water with your company to New York. In accordance with his instructions, Elzey made terms with Governor Brown, and his company was permitted to depart the arsenal with its arms and company property and to have unobstructed passage to New York.
State of Louisiana: The U.S. Arsenal at Baton Rouge, was seized by the Louisiana militia on 10 January 1861, as was the U.S. Army pentagon barracks at Baton Rouge. The New Orleans Barracks [Jackson Barracks] was seized on 11 January, as were Forts St. Philip and Jackson. Between them, these two forts controlled the Mississippi River approach to New Orleans. Fort Pike, which controlled the Rigolets Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was taken on 14 January. Fort Macomb, which controlled the Chef Menteur Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was seized on 28 January. On 31 January Revenue Captain James G. Breshwood surrendered the revenue cutter Robert McClelland to the State of Louisiana; which turned the cutter over to the Confederate States Navy which renamed her CSS Pickens. On 31 January the revenue cutter Washington was seized by Louisiana authorities in New Orleans. On 26 January the Louisiana Secession Convention passed the states Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Louisiana for their approval.
State of Mississippi: On 9 January 1861 the Mississippi Secession Convention passed the states Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Mississippi for their approval. On 21 January the Mississippi militia seized Fort Massachusetts, an unfinished brick fort on Ship Island on the Mississippi coast. The fort was abandoned by the end of January because Governor Pettus had no artillery to arm it.
State of North Carolina: On 23 April 1861 the North Carolina militia seized the Federal arsenal at Fayetteville, and the Federal garrison subsequently departed on 27 April. On 20 May the North Carolina Secession Convention passed the states Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of North Carolina for their approval in a referendum.
State of South Carolina: On 20 December 1860 the South Carolina Secession Convention passed the states Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of South Carolina for their approval. On 27 December Captain Napoleon Coste turned the revenue cutter William Aiken over to South Carolina secessionists. On the same date, the South Carolina militia seized Castle Pickney, a small masonry fort in Charleston harbor. A Federal officer and a sergeant and his family were captured, provoking a discussion by the South Carolinians over whether to treat them as prisoners of war. The officer was allowed to go to Fort Sumter, while the sergeant was given a safe conduct and permitted to remain in his quarters at the fort. Also on the 27th the militia seized Fort Moultrie, another of the forts guarding Charleston harbor, which had been evacuated by its commander, Major Robert Anderson, on the 26th. On 28 December the South Carolina militia occupied the site of Fort Johnson on Windmill Point on James Island. Although long unoccupied by the U.S. Army, it had been one of the four forts controlling Charleston harbor. On 30 December the Charleston Arsenal was seized.
State of Tennessee: On 6 May 1861 the Tennessee Secession Convention passed the states Ordnance of Secession. Although the state did not formally succeed from the Union until a declaration of independence referendum on 8 June, Governor Isham G. Harris persuaded the legislature to create the Provisional Army of Tennessee on 6 May. The enabling legislation authorized an army of 55,000 volunteers and authorized the governor to issue $5 million in state bonds for defense and military supplies. By the end of May convicts at the state penitentiary in Nashville were manufacturing small arms cartridges and other military supplies. The 8 June referendum affirmed the Ordnance of Secession 104, 913 to 47,238. East Tennessee voted solidly Unionist, and there were reports of interference with the vote in middle and western Tennessee, however.
State of Texas: On 1 February 1861 the Texas Secession Convention passed the states Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was submitted to the people of Texas for their approval on 23 February, with the referendum passing 46,153 to 14,747. Although Texas had not yet seceded, Major General Twiggs surrendered his forces and facilities, including the San Antonio Arsenal, at the demand of Texas authorities on 16 February. His officers and enlisted personnel were permitted to depart the state with their small arms, and the two artillery batteries under his command with four guns each.
Commonwealth of Virginia: On 17 April 1861 the Virginia Secession Convention passed the Commonwealths Ordnance of Secession, but there was an effort to initially suppress the announcement that the Ordnance had passed. While the Convention was meeting in secret session on the 17th, William C. Scott, the delegate from Powhatan County, said I was told by the Adjutant General this morning that if we passed an ordinance of secession, we ought not to let it be known for a few days, because he sent for arms to the North, and he is apprehensive that they may be intercepted if it was known that the ordinance passed. Would it not be well, if we are determined to secede, to wait a little while in order that we may receive those arms from the North? We could then secede, and we would be in a much better condition to meet the enemy than we are now. This seems to be the proper course, and I trust the Convention will pursue it. Later in the debates that day, Scott again mentioned his conversation with the Adjutant General and said The Governor tells us this morning that if the action of this Convention is permitted to be known outside of this body, these arms will not be allowed to come here. If you send a communication of this sort to the President of the Confederate States, there will be great danger that the whole secret will leak out. On 30 April the Convention authorized the Governor to issue $2,000,000 in treasury notes for the defense of the Commonwealth. The Ordnance of Succession was not ratified by the people of Virginia until a referendum on 23 May, wherein it passed 132,201 to 37,451. Although secession had not yet been approved by the people, the Commonwealth militia prepared to seize the Harpers Ferry Armory. First Lieutenant Roger Jones, USA, had been ordered to Harpers Ferry on 3 January with a company of eight non-commissioned officers and 60 enlisted men. By 18 April Rogers was in command of the post. Recognizing his utter inability to defend the armory, Jones set fire to the buildings and retreated with his troops across the Potomac River.
The above is probably incomplete; does not included the seizure of non-military facilities such as those of the Treasury Department, Post Office, etc.; and ends with the firing on Fort Sumter. The only aggression I see here is on the part of the Confederates, although I suppose that a bitter ender would assert that LT Slemmers defense of his post at Fort Barrancas in the face of an armed attack was aggression, or that the burning of the Harpers Ferry Armory by 1LT Jones was aggression.
Under the law of nations in 1861 and the Confederacy wished to be recognized by the world powers as an independent nation - honorable men issued declarations of war before they began hostile military actions. In this respect, the leaders of the Confederacy were as honorable men as the Japanese on 7 December 1941 at Pearl Harbor.
Considering seven states had already seceded before he even took the oath, and he was hoping to ease their fears and advert a war, and that four of those seven states had declared in their articles of secession that they had done so to preserve slavery, it would have been pretty foolhardy to propose an amendment to end slavery at that point.
You know sometimes I actually feel sorry for degenerate lamp. I feel like I’m beating up the retarded kid in school or something. But I have noticed on other topics he can actually make sense, it’s like he’s got his wires crossed on the Civil War and refuses to acknowledge any facts that dispute his claims.
No, they were not. They were only part of the United States because they agreed to be part of a confederacy that wanted independence from England. You might read the Declaration of Independence to gain an understanding of how this concept of NATURAL LAW operates.
States do not need anyone's permission to become independent. The very idea is a refutation of the rights of man. The other states no more have a right to force someone to be ruled by them, than a collection of individuals have to make another man a slave.
The confederates were also fighting for a horrible cause, the enslavement of other humans.
No they weren't, and here you are repeating that f***ing lie again, when *YOU* know full well that they would have the rights to own and enslave other human beings so long as they remained members of the United States!
Stop lying. Stop lying. Stop lying. They were not fighting for something they already had, and which Lincoln was going to give them even more protection for.
That is deliberately spread deceit to misdirect people from the reasons why the NORTH invaded and murdered people in the South to protect the big, fat-cat multibillionaires in the North who still rule us to this very day.
The evil forces against Trump now are the same disgusting wealthy influence peddlers who live along the North East coast between Washington DC and Boston Massachusetts, and who suck up all the money in the nation through taxes so that it will flow through the pockets of this wealthy elite who hate us here in "flyover country."
The Deep State corruption coalition is the descendents of the same corrupt people who fought the South to stop the economic threat they posed to these corrupt Northern Robber Barons.
The power in this nation is in the North East, and the rest of us just serve these people by sending our tax dollars to Washington DC.
Maybe one day you will figure it out. Here is a clue to help you.
Yes. The conversation that 0zero said Americans were afraid to have.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitutionwhich amendment, however, I have not seenhas passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
For those who do not know, this amendment in question would have made slavery virtually permanent until the last state chose to give it up voluntarily.
Yes, Lincoln was supporting an amendment to make slave interests more powerful and better protected. Did he do this because he cared about slavery? No! He did it because he cared about all that slave produced money flooding into New York and Washington DC. He cared about the money flow to his wealthy backers in New York, and he cared about the money flow into the Federal government under his control.
*THAT* is what Lincoln cared about in March of 1861.
Resolved, 1. That it is the right of any people, sufficiently numerous for national independence, to throw off, to revolutionize, their existing form of government, and to establish such other in its stead as they may choose.
January 9, 1852
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred righta right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution.
January 12, 1848
So? At least you admit he sent his war fleet. A lot of you won't even admit that. A lot of people want to tell us that it was a "supply" mission. Yeah, four warships and a troop transport ship are not a "supply" mission.
Under the law of nations in 1861 and the Confederacy wished to be recognized by the world powers as an independent nation - honorable men issued declarations of war before they began hostile military actions.
Taking over land that belongs to you is not a military action unless someone turns it into a military action.
The land belonged to them. It did not belong to Washington DC once those states had decided to leave the Union.
A Declaration of War should not have been necessary for people to regain what was already theirs.
It would have been impossible to do it at any point, and there should have been no fear of a war if Lincoln had chosen not to start one.
And of course, once again trot out your three little states that wrote about slavery being their primary cause, and ignore the other 8 that did not.
Virginia, the most notable and powerful of all the states at that time, clearly said they were seceding because Washington DC had become tyrannical and was abusing the power it had been given by calling for an invasion of the Southern states.
But you just keep forcing that history into the mold you are trying to create.
” . . . it would have been pretty foolhardy to propose an amendment to end slavery at that point.”
Sure, it was not in the north’s economic or political best self interest.
I guess we can forever dismiss the notion that the north “fought the war to free the slaves.”
This would be a natural feeling if you were actually winning these exchanges, but it is quite bizarre for someone consistently getting his butt whipped in the back and forth.
But I have noticed on other topics he can actually make sense, its like hes got his wires crossed on the Civil War and refuses to acknowledge any facts that dispute his claims.
And that is pretty much how many people appear to me. I used to believe the official accounts of the Civil War, but over time I could not make the things which did not make sense, make sense, and I finally realized this is because they aren't accurate.
Once you get accurate information to work with, the whole affair looks quite different from what it did when I had only heard one side of the argument all my life.
so you just fire off at the hip at a broad swath of fellow freepers
When challenged you refuse to cite examples out of laziness or ignorance and resort to your usual invective
Which is fine...thats a large club here
Speaking of clubs...I have a freaky memory and remember you well
I recall back when you ran with howlin and Dane and all the rest of the Bushbot pro amnesty crowd here which loomed over the forum like pimple faced high school girls jeering for the zoo of anyone who disagreed with you
When Giuliani imploded here didnt you skip off to anti freep at Wideawakes
Now youre back to bash southerners here from the confines of I assume Southern California
Thats special of you.
Youre part of the problem dear
Weak virtue signaler and handicapped by the need for moral exculpation at every turn....
Feel sorry? Not in the slightest. DegenerateLamp knows better but his obdurate insistence on taking the fools position precludes him from admitting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.