Reminder: Democrats ran the KKK, started the Civil War, celebrated slavery and fought against

thenationalsentinel.com ^ | July 29, 2019 | J. D. Heyes

[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.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "No he did not. Here’s what he said after Fort Sumter was fired on..."

I see now you beat me to the right answer, thanks!

Buchanan was your typical "Doughfaced" Northern Democrat -- willing, if not eager, to bend over & spread his cheeks to accommodate the Southern slave-power, but for the reason that he loved his country, the United States of America, and was not willing to see it broken up by military force.

So, when push came to shove, Democrat Buchanan backed the Union.
How many Democrats today would do that?

[DiogenesLamp]

You can try to spin it, but there is no successful way to spin Lincoln's support of the Corwin amendment.

Lincoln wanted that money, and it's just that simple.

For further reading, look up Henry Clay's "Mercantilism" to understand why Lincoln wanted that money.

Tax and Spend Liberal, wanting to oversee huge government spending projects, just like modern tax and spend liberals.

Government knows best, you know.

[DiogenesLamp]

You simply see what you want to see.

[rockrr]

Kudos to you on your posts 136 & 137. The intimation that you “hate” someone simply because you hold a different opinion is the stuff of dhimmicrats, not conservatives.

I came across a WBTS thread on FreeRepublic about 15 years ago quite by accident. I foolishly offered an observation that ran contrary to the lost cause dogma and was instantly branded a “south hater” (whatever that is!). Despite my protestations that I adore the south and had grown up in the deep south (New Orleans and Huntsville Alabama) the branding continued. One FReeper (allegedly an adult but who knows) actually has a Haters List on his home page!

I’ve followed WBTS threads ever since, arguing for the union side. I also post over at civilwartalk.com. Interestingly there, the moderators do not allow the sort of soft slander that happens at FreeRepublic. “Argue the issues, not the personalities” appears to be their motto and it’s a good one.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“One FReeper (allegedly an adult but who knows) actually has a Haters List on his home page!”

I saw that Enemy’s list. It’s ironic that some people around here use the exact tactics employed against Trump when they label him a bigot.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "...it would have been pretty foolhardy to propose an amendment to end slavery at that point."

DiogenesLamp: "It would have been impossible to do it at any point..."

In 1860 virtually every American understood that slavery was a pre-condition for Union -- without slavery there would have been no Union and any blatant attempt at nationally imposed abolition would end the United States as it was then known.

So Republicans in 1860 merely wanted to return to the conditions of, say, 1788, when Congress could outlaw slavery in US Northwest Territories and states could abolish slavery within their own borders.
Nobody then proposed abolition in the South.

But that's not what Southern Fire Eaters said in 1861.
They said Republican efforts to restrict slavery were existential threats to slavery and reason-enough to justify secession.

Once civil war began, then all bets were off regarding abolition in Confederate states.
Contraband of War, confiscation of rebel property, enlistment of runaway slaves and emancipation in Confederate regions -- all became possible in a war of rebellion.

Also, with 11 slave-states seceded and their white voters self-disenfranchising, passage of the 13th Amendment made national abolition a political possibility.

And so it was done.

So, secession began to protect slavery, Civil War ended with it's constitutional abolition.
It was indeed, "all about slavery".

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

Here again is that summary of seven (7) Reasons for Secession documents issued before Fort Sumter:

1. December 1860, South Carolina's official Reasons for Secession" details slavery and no other reasons.

2. December 1860, South Carolina's Robert Barnwell Rhett writing to other slaveholding states includes four long paragraphs on slavery, three shorter paragraphs on taxes.

3. January 1861, Mississippi's official Reasons lists only slavery.

4. January 1861, Alabama's Ordinance of Secession lists only slavery as its reason.

5. January 1861, Georgia's official Reasons complains briefly about "bounties" for "fishing smacks" but devotes at least ten times more words to slavery.

6. February 1861, Texas official Reasons also complains briefly about Jefferson Davis & RE Lee's poor attempts to protect Texans against "Indian savages" and "murderous banditti", but spends many times more words on slavery.

7. March 1861, Georgia's Alexander Stephens famous "Corner Stone" speech:
   "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.]
   This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
   This truth has been slow in the process of its development..."

Florida & Louisiana gave no reasons for their secessions.

Summary: of seven (7) "Reasons for Secession" documents issued before Fort Sumter, all gave slavery as a major reason, three of them listed slavery as the only reason.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You can try to spin it, but there is no successful way to spin Lincoln's support of the Corwin amendment.
Lincoln wanted that money, and it's just that simple."

Nonsense, and no "spin" required.
Lincoln never lifted a finger to "support" Corwin, merely allowed Democrats & RINOs to do their own things.
The reason, he said, was that Corwin in effect changed nothing.

As for alleged sole concern over "money, money, money", that's just your own Marxist dialectical training vomiting out onto Lincoln.
Money was not Lincoln's first concern, his Oath of Office to the Constitution was.

DiogenesLamp: "For further reading, look up Henry Clay's "Mercantilism" to understand why Lincoln wanted that money.
Tax and Spend Liberal, wanting to oversee huge government spending projects, just like modern tax and spend liberals."

No organization, government or otherwise, can survive without revenues, but Lincoln-Republicans were no "tax & spend" liberals.
So here again is a sample of historical Federal non-debt spending, as percents of GDP:

1. 1795 Federalist President Washington = 2.6%
2. 1804 Democrat President Jefferson = 3.5%
3. 1824 Democrat President Monroe = 2.8%
4. 1836 Democrat President Jackson = 2.3%
5. 1858 Democrat President Buchanan = 2.6%

6. 1871 Republican President Grant = 2.5%
7. 1883 Republican President Arthur = 2.2%
8. 1903 Republican President T. Roosevelt = 2.5%
9. 1927 Republican President Cooldige = 2.5%

10. 1936 Democrat President FDR = 17%

Peacetime "tax & spend" began with FDR's New Deal in the 1930s.
Nothing before that -- Democrat or Republican -- ever came anywhere close.

[DiogenesLamp]

What has "non debt" got to do with it? Since when do tax and spend liberals care about debt?

How much debt did Lincoln run up to conquer the South?

[DiogenesLamp]

Skip. Too long.

[jeffersondem]

“Nobody then (1860) proposed abolition in the South.”

So we can forever dismiss the notion that the North “fought to free the slaves.”

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "What has "non debt" got to do with it?
Since when do tax and spend liberals care about debt?"

In every war the US government has run up huge national debts.
Those debts are the single biggest reason why in 1787 our Founders met to write up a new Constitution -- they wanted a Federal government strong enough to pay-off its war debts.

War debts before WWII took years, even decades to pay off and often caused higher taxes in the process.
But if you subtract out the war-debt payments from Federal spending you get the number spent on everything else, other than debt reduction.
Before Franklin Roosevelt's 1930s New Deal, that number always hovered around 2.5% of GDP, from President Washington through President Calvin Coolidge.
That's what my numbers listed here show.

Whether the administration was Federalist, Democrat, Whig or Republican, Washington DC's non-debt spending averaged around 2.5% of GDP.
Before FDR, there were no seriously Big Government Liberals.

DiogenesLamp: "How much debt did Lincoln run up to conquer the South?"

Roughly the same as our Founders ran up in the Revolutionary War, as Wilson ran up in WWI, less than half of FDR during WWII and roughly the same as Obama over eight peacetime years, measured as percentages of GDP.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Skip. Too long."

Nonsense, you skip it because it's true and you have no answers to truth.

[jmacusa]

Wrong. Ever hear of the words ‘’show of force’’ or ‘’deterrent''. Lincoln was resupplying a federal military installation. What should he have used, a row boat?

[jmacusa]

The Aspergers must be firing him up today.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "So we can forever dismiss the notion that the North “fought to free the slaves.”"

Well, except for those who began singing this marching song in 1861:

"Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on...

...In the beauty of the lilies[14] Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,[15]
While God is marching on..."

And then there was this man in 1862:

"...on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."

And there was this in 1864:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1] "

And, of course, this, among many others similar:

1862: The Vidette, a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade.
In one of the November, 1862 issues, the following appeared:
"...any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."

But other than those...

[DiogenesLamp]

I've answered it before. You just ignore my answers, and keep reposting what I have already refuted.

This is why I usually don't bother responding to your posts. Proving you wrong accomplishes nothing. You are like the media constantly repeating "Trump is racist." Nothing will convince you otherwise.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wrong. Ever hear of the words ‘’show of force’’ or ‘’deterrent''. Lincoln was resupplying a federal military installation. What should he have used, a row boat?

The task was deemed sufficient with one ship before. Now it takes four or five warships to accomplish the same task that originally only needed the "Star of the West" to carry out? (Also, the Star of the West was carrying secret troops on a military mission, but few knew it at the time.)

And it was no longer a federal military installation because the state that owns the land seceded. Furthermore, it was specifically constructed to protect the people of Charleston from being attacked by Sea, instead it was used to *FORCE* unwanted Federal dominance on people who did not want it.

The South was paying 75% of all taxes, and New York and Washington DC were insuring all their output funneled through all the right pockets in Washington DC and New York.

Same corrupt elite class arrogant bastards we are fighting today, and from the same parts of the country.

New York and Washington DC still rule all of the rest of us. This is why the propaganda apparatus is under their control in New York, and they use it to spread lies and smears against anyone challenging their power, such as Donald Trump.

[jmacusa]

Irony’s lost on you, isn’t it? You never tire of being made a fool, do you?

[DiogenesLamp]

Wouldn’t know. It has yet to occur.

[jeffersondem]

“As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free . . .”

There is that, and Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech which supported southern fears that, if elected, Lincoln would use the military to violently overthrow the pro-slavery United States Constitution and destroy the South physically and economically.

For some reason the South did not want to be destroyed.

The North could have introduced in 1860 (or 1800 for that matter) a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery peacefully. But the North did not think it was in their economic and political best self interest to do so.

If a proposed constitutional amendment to abolish slavery had not received the necessary votes in 1860, the North would have been no worse off in my mind - Lincoln could still have claimed to have moral and legal authority attack and kill his economic and political rivals.

We may never know the real reasons Lincoln decided to go to war. But we do know Lincoln and the North never tried to introduce a constitutional amendment to peacefully abolish slavery before they invaded the South.