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.

[jeffersondem]

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

There is that, John Brown’s northern-financed murder raid, 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.

[jeffersondem]

“For all of its existence, the American Democrat Party has stood for distinctly anti-American principles and values . . .”

Liberals have been so successful in playing the race card against conservatives that it is not surprising that some young, immature conservatives want to even the score by playing the race card right back.

This leads to the preposterous claim that William “Cold Cash” Jefferson of Louisiana has the identical political views of Thomas Jefferson of Virginia.

A better tactic for conservatives would be to treat history as history and, going forward, advocate for a market economy, and a pro-Christian, western worldview. Stuff like that.

[OIFVeteran]

The real reason is because rebels fired on a military installation. And that decision was made by Jefferson Davis. In fact his own Secretary of State warned him about firing on Fort Sumter,”Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.” Robert Toombs

[jeffersondem]

“The real reason is because rebels fired on a military installation.”

No U.S. serviceman was killed when the President created the Gulf of Tonkin incident . . . I meant to say the Fort Sumter incident.

Lincoln's war which killed 600,000 - maybe 700,000 - Americans was not proportional to the cannonballs that did damage the bricks in South Carolina. And certainly not an appropriate response to the South peacefully invoking “consent of the governed.”

[Pelham]

+1

factual history doesn’t sell around here. We much prefer the comic book version as expounded by Beck & Dinesh.

[Bull Snipe]

“We may never know the real reasons Lincoln decided to go to war.”
Jefferson Davis gave Lincoln all the reason he needed to go to war.

[Bull Snipe]

“The task was deemed sufficient with one ship before”.
That attempt was met by artillery fire by the Government of South Carolina.

The prudent planner would assume that opposition was a real possibility in any further attempt to resupply Fort Sumter.
Hence war ships were part of the resupply effort.

[jeffersondem]

“Jefferson Davis gave Lincoln all the reason he needed to go to war.”

Did Lincoln go to war to “free the slaves?”

The claim that he did seems to be in dispute.

[Pelham]

More than bricks were damaged in that bombardment, buster.

A horse was killed. A US Army horse.

That, my friend, was worth destroying the Southern United States and killing the Devil’s spawn who lived there.

There’s a few freepers who wish that Republican Senators Ben Wade and Zechariah Chandler had gotten their way so that Jeff Davis, Robert E Lee, and the rest of the Confederate leadership would all have been hung for treason. As we know, of course, the GOP is God’s Agent on Earth. Amen. Battle Hymn of the Republic. John Brown, Greater than Jesus. I’m only half mocking because there were Republicans at that time who said exactly that.

[Pelham]

The Confederate States seceded over slavery.

Lincoln “declared war” on them to force them to remain in the Union. He said this repeatedly. “Preserve the Union”.

This all gets conflated in the modern mind because the Civil War resulted in the end of American slavery. And it’s because no one today actually reads history and its complexity gets shoved aside for the more comfortable cartoon version. Keep it simple, we’re busy and besides we like to be entertained.

Lincoln opposed slavery and definitely did not want it to expand beyond the States where it already existed. But Lincoln was also a lawyer and he didn’t think that he could just end slavery in States were it was legal.

He wasn’t an abolitionist when he ran for President- all you need do to discover that is to read what William Lloyd Garrison and the rest of the abolitionists had to say about Lincoln. They certainly didn’t consider him one of their faction. And it’s also very worthwhile to read Frederick Douglas’ memorial to Lincoln at the 10th anniversary of Lincoln’s death. Douglas was very grateful to Lincoln, whom he knew pretty well- but Douglas believed that freeing the slaves was incidental to Lincoln’s real purpose, which was to restore the Union.

[Pelham]

“As talk in the South about secession was quite serious, it was expected that the president would do something to reduce tensions. In that era, presidents did not visit Capitol Hill to deliver a State of the Union Address in January but instead provided the report required by the Constitution in written form in early December.

“President Buchanan wrote a message to Congress which was delivered on December 3, 1860. In his message, Buchanan said that he believed secession was illegal.

“Yet Buchanan also said he did not believe the federal government had any right to prevent states from seceding.

“So Buchanan’s message pleased nobody. Southerners were offended by Buchanan’s belief that secession was illegal. And Northerners were perplexed by the president’s belief that the federal government couldn’t act to prevent states from seceding.”

https://www.thoughtco.com/president-james-buchanan-the-secession-crisis-1773714

**************************

“Immediately after Lincoln’s election Buchanan faced the most personally wrenching crisis of his public life when southerners who had threatened secession for years actually began the process of destroying the Union. General-in-Chief Winfield Scott promptly urged the immediate garrisoning of federal forts with sufficient troops to prevent a surprise attack. But Buchanan did nothing as, like dominoes, seven southern states seceded in the winter of 1860-1861. Buchanan believed that while secession was illegal, any coercion by the federal government was also illegal—a view that led Senator William Henry Seward to observe that what Buchanan espoused was that no state had a right to secede unless it wanted to and the government must save the Union unless somebody opposed it.”

https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/james-buchanan.html

[Pelham]

Hardly the words of a man against the war.

I'll stick with the opinion of Bill Seward-

"Immediately after Lincoln’s election Buchanan faced the most personally wrenching crisis of his public life when southerners who had threatened secession for years actually began the process of destroying the Union. General-in-Chief Winfield Scott promptly urged the immediate garrisoning of federal forts with sufficient troops to prevent a surprise attack. But Buchanan did nothing as, like dominoes, seven southern states seceded in the winter of 1860-1861. Buchanan believed that while secession was illegal, any coercion by the federal government was also illegal—a view that led Senator William Henry Seward to observe that what Buchanan espoused was that no state had a right to secede unless it wanted to and the government must save the Union unless somebody opposed it."

https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/james-buchanan.html

[wardaddy]

So how are you yourself towards Christians in your life in the 20th and 21st centuries since both sides of the door in Wittenberg persecuted your ancestry in the time since then ?

[OIFVeteran]

I’ve always wondered if Buchanan had listened to Scott and responded forcibly to South Carolina’s secession, as Andrew Jackson did, could the civil war been avoided?

Of course if it was avoided we may have had slavery in the US until the early 1900s, so it’s a good thing it wasn’t.

[OIFVeteran]

If you read the quote I posted to you after the rebels fired on Fort Sumter he believed the US was justified in using force to put down the rebellion. He even went so far as to encourage other democrats to support the war effort.

[BroJoeK]

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

Complete nonsense, you've refuted nothing, ever, period.
You simply post your same-ole' same-ole', always ignoring the real truth.

DiogenesLamp: "This is why I usually don't bother responding to your posts.
Proving you wrong accomplishes nothing. "

But you've never "proved me wrong", not once -- you're like the football team doing its little victory dance after being pushed back into its own endzone.
You didn't score, idiot, you're just totally (and hilariously) confused!

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Now it takes four or five warships to accomplish the same task that originally only needed the "Star of the West" to carry out?"

There was only one Union ship at Charleston, the small Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane, when Confederates made their demand for Fort Sumter's surrender.
A second Union ship, the rented passenger steamer SS Baltic, arrived about the time Confederates began their bombardment of Fort Sumter.

Neither ship was involved in Jefferson Davis' decision to attack Fort Sumter.

DiogenesLamp: "And it was no longer a federal military installation because the state that owns the land seceded."

Pure fantasy.

DiogenesLamp: "The South was paying 75% of all taxes...<"/i>

"The South" paid no taxes -- zero, zip, nada taxes.
Deep South cotton accounted for about 50% of total US exports, including specie.
Those exports were not taxed -- zero taxes -- but did help pay for imports which were taxed.

And for every dollar Southerners earned exporting cotton, they spent a dollar "importing" manufactured goods from the North, tax free, zero taxes.
That's how Northerners earned money to pay for the vast majority of US import taxes.

DiogenesLamp: "New York and Washington DC were insuring all their output funneled through all the right pockets in Washington DC and New York."

From 1800 until 1861 all US Federal laws were written by Southerners, for Southerners, in alliance with their Doughfaced Northern Democrat partners.
If Southerners weren't happy with US laws, they could change them whenever they wished.

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

Right, Democrats back then, Democrats today.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "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."

So, at last, you do admit slavery had at least something to do with it, right?

Don't worry, you're secret's safe with me, I won't tell a soul that you've strayed off the Lost Cause Mother Church Reservation. ;-)

jeffersondem: "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."

For many years the South would not allow the subject of slavery to be even discussed in Congress, much less entertain bills to abolish it.
Southerners made clear they'd not tolerate any interference with slavery, and so Unionists steered clear.

jeffersondem: "We may never know the real reasons Lincoln decided to go to war. "

You poke out your own eyes and then complain of blindness?
Of course we know why Lincoln went to war, it can be summarized in two words: Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "A better tactic for conservatives would be to treat history as history and, going forward, advocate for a market economy, and a pro-Christian, western worldview. Stuff like that. "

You said it.

[BroJoeK]

wardaddy: "So how are you yourself towards Christians in your life in the 20th and 21st centuries since both sides of the door in Wittenberg persecuted your ancestry in the time since then ?"

Thanks for asking, FRiend.
Half my ancestors were pacifist Anabaptists, the other half served the United States from the Revolutionary War onward.
The Anabaptist ancestors were persecuted by both Protestants and Catholics in Europe, it's why they came here.
Other ancestors came here for more worldly reasons, including fleeing to dodge being drafted into European armies.

Generations ago each branch left their previous churches and ended up in one that has a long Heritage of service to the United States, in years well before its own leadership was taken over by "_________" (will remain unspoken).
So today my little country church belongs to a relatively new but rapidly growing evangelical group within the larger "mainline" denomination.

I don't hold previous persecution against any current Christian denomination, and certainly would never demand "reparations" for it! ;-)