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]

Pelham quoting: "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. "

Right, Buchanan's inaction was widely blamed for the war, often called "Buchanan's War".
But once war began, Buchanan, unlike former Presidents Pierce and Tyler, supported the Union cause.

[DiogenesLamp]

That attempt was met by artillery fire by the Government of South Carolina.

Cadets at the Citadel who were acting under no orders from any Governing official to do so.

The prudent planner would assume that opposition was a real possibility in any further attempt to resupply Fort Sumter.

No. The prudent planner, having had access to all the dispatches sent by Major Anderson from Ft. Sumter which detailed the massive array of armaments that had been positioned around the harbor would have concluded that any attempt to reinforce or resupply that fortress was stark raving insanity that would accomplish nothing more than killing off a lot of good men and sinking a lot of ships.

In fact, Lincoln was told by quite a number of Military experts that the plan was unworkable.

No sane person would consider the idea of forcing their way up the harbor to be a reasonable idea. Anderson, upon first learning of it, thought it was not only a horrible idea, but a deliberate violation of trust, and therefore dishonorable.

Hence war ships were part of the resupply effort.

Not at all. Warships were sent for one purpose only. To get the Confederates to attack. They could accomplish nothing else, and Lincoln knew it.

Admiral David Porter in his memoirs asserted that this was about the worst idea that anyone could have conceived. He said that had the ships attempted to carry out their orders, they would have all been sunk.

This fact was readily apparent before the mission, so it's pretty clear they were never really expected to attempt this folly that their orders required.

That's why the Powhatan monkey wrench was thrown into the whole thing. The Confederates didn't know it was all a ruse. They thought it was a serious but stupid attack.

[Bull Snipe]

The artillery instructor was a officer in the South Carolina militia. South Carolina owned the guns, projectiles and the powder. The fact they had no direct orders from Beauregard isn’t the point.

Again if the first resupply effort was fired on by anybody, chances are that the second one would be fired on. Davis would have ordered Beauregard to fire on Sumter if the girl scouts in canoes were ferrying provisions to Sumter. He was not going to allow the fort to continue to be occupied by U.S. Forces. Lincoln could have sent a completely unarmed ship to Charleston with nothing but hard tack, coffee, and beans, and Davis would have ordered Beauregard to reduce the fort regardless. Davis had been warned that firing on Sumter would mean war. Davis accepted that fact and gave the order.

[Bull Snipe]

IMO, no, restoring the Union was Lincoln’s objective in going to war.

[DiogenesLamp]

The artillery instructor was a officer in the South Carolina militia. South Carolina owned the guns, projectiles and the powder. The fact they had no direct orders from Beauregard isn’t the point.

Kinda is. If you are going to allege the government of South Carolina did something, you have to demonstrate a chain of command carrying out such orders.

Now the South Carolina government and people were probably delighted that the Citadel cadets fired at that ship, but no one told them to do so in any official capacity.

He was not going to allow the fort to continue to be occupied by U.S. Forces.

Actually he was. This was quite clear in the message that was sent to Beauregard. I believe it said that if Anderson would simply name the time he would evacuate, they would give him all the time he required.

Anderson had already written the evacuation order, and I believe it said they would have left the fort in a few days.

You may not want to accept this, but it was the telegraphed arrival of all those ships of war that triggered the attack.

Look at the records. You will find that the Harriet Lane was sighted in the Channel an hour or so before the decision to attack had been made.

The Confederates knew those warships were coming. They were led to believe those warships would have immediately engaged in a foolish attack upon them, because that's what the ship's orders said they would do.

Lincoln knew the Navy department leaked like a sieve, and Lieutenant Porter had advised him that any information going through that department would be "flashed across the wires" to the South.

The Confederates knew far in advance what those ships were supposed to do, and they planned accordingly believing those ships would follow their known orders.

The ships arrived, and that triggered an attack that would not have otherwise happened.

[Bull Snipe]

Davis would have fired on Sumter regardless of whether the resupply effort was escorted by warships or not. He would have order Beauregard to reduce the fort if Lincoln sent an unarmed merchant ship to Charleston with nothing but food.
Davis would not allow the status quo to continue. He knew it would be war, and he accepted that as the price to reduce Sumter.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Since Lincoln urged the passage of the Corwin Amendment, the Southern states would have supported it, and so slavery would have remained in the Union as possibly long as the 1940s, by which time agriculture machinery had been developed that could do the job better, faster, and more efficiently.

But no, it's not good that there was a "civil war" at all. It also wasn't really a civil war. The South was not trying to take over the Federal government. They were just trying to make the Federal government leave them alone.

Most of our modern problems with the government being too huge and too intrusive stem from the Civil War.

[DiogenesLamp]

And it wasn't a "rebellion." The States had seceded as the Declaration of Independence informed them they lawfully could do, and it was done through a democratic process that represented the will of the people.

There would not have even been a military confrontation if Lincoln hadn't sent warships into the situation with orders to attack the Confederates.

Everything would have been resolved peacefully but for the arrival of warships sent by Lincoln.

[DiogenesLamp]

He would have order Beauregard to reduce the fort if Lincoln sent an unarmed merchant ship to Charleston with nothing but food.

I have already pointed out to you what the official telegraph said. They had absolutely no intention of firing on the fort if Anderson would state the time of evacuation. Beauregard was given all the discretion necessary to avoid any confrontation.

The arrival of the Ships made this impossible, because now Beauregard had been put in the position of having to fight a two front engagement, because the Ships would attack him from the coast, and the fort would attack him from the harbor.

Again, Ships caused the war. Had there been no ships, there would have been no war.

Read the telegram. See how it differs from how you are trying to characterize it. Do you need a link?

[Bull Snipe]

Again, if Lincoln sent an unarmed, unescorted supply ship to provision Sumter, Davis would have ordered Beauregard to reduce the fort before the resupply effort could be accomplished. He could not allow the status quo to continue.

[Pelham]

“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.”

If Lincoln had said sayonara to the first seven seceding States he could have ended US slavery in 1861 by voting it out of existence. Because without those seven States in Congress the balance of power in Congress had shifted dramatically.

“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?”

Had Lincoln not called for 75,000 troops to put down secession then Virginia would not have left the Union. It was that decision to use force that reversed the vote in Virginia. And Virginia’s decision prompted North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee to follow.

Then instead of a 7 state rump CSA that would have had difficulty remaining independent, Lincoln had an 11 state CSA with a formidable military that was going to fight against invasion for the next four years.

[DiogenesLamp]

Again, if Lincoln sent an unarmed, unescorted supply ship to provision Sumter, Davis would have ordered Beauregard to reduce the fort before the resupply effort could be accomplished.

You are repeating that like a mantra. It clearly isn't true based upon the actual records. Since you won't look it up yourself, I'll find it for you.

Montgomery, April 11. To Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:

We do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter if Major Anderson will state the time at which as indicated by him he will evacuate, and agree that in the mean time he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter. You can thus avoid the effusion of blood. If this order should be unequivocally refused, reduce the Fort as your judgement decides to be the most practicable.

L. P. Walker, Secretary of War.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then instead of a 7 state rump CSA that would have had difficulty remaining independent, Lincoln had an 11 state CSA with a formidable military that was going to fight against invasion for the next four years.

Did you ever notice how it is always the "genius" presidents that make an utter mess of everything?

Lincoln in 1861.

Wilson in 1914.

Kennedy in 1960.

Carter in 1976.

Clinton in 1992.

Obama in 2008.

All of these men were hailed as "Geniuses", and yet they presided over some of the very worst mistakes in American history.

Funny thing was, Lincoln offered to let those original states go if Virginia would simply pledge to remain. Additionally, delegates from Virginia did indeed go to Lincoln (after the War Fleet had already launched) and told him that they believed they had the votes to issue such a statement, to which Lincoln replied "Too Late! You sir, are too late!", or words to that effect.

Lincoln knew he had started a war. A very bad war.

[OIFVeteran]

If Lincoln has said sayonara to those seven states the most likely result is he would have been impeached and removed by the Republican Congress and his VP would have then suppress the rebellion.

What all of you bro-confederates keep forgetting is that the Republicans in Congress believed secesssion was illegal and approved of and passed laws supporting Lincoln’s suppression of it.

[Pelham]

“What all of you bro-confederates”

Does the name calling make your argument work better? Seems to be habitual.

[OIFVeteran]

Neo-confederates, and no the facts speak for themselves.

[Bull Snipe]

You know as well as I do that Davis ordered Beauregard to reduce the fort prior to the arrival of the resupply ships.
It would not have made a difference whether there were warships escorting them or not. Davis was not going to allow Sumter to be resupplied under any circumstance.
He knew it would probably lead to war. But he was not going to allow the continued occupation of Sumter by U.S. forces.

[Pelham]

Ad hominem is the argument of fools.

[rockrr]

Ad hominem is the argument of fools.

Just remember that this is coming from the guy who refers to fellow FReepers as "yankeefa"....LoL

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp quoting:

"Montgomery, April 11. To Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:

We do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter if Major Anderson will state the time at which as indicated by him he will evacuate, and agree that in the mean time he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter.
You can thus avoid the effusion of blood. If this order should be unequivocally refused, reduce the Fort as your judgement decides to be the most practicable.

L. P. Walker, Secretary of War."

We should notice, first, that these orders say nothing about Union ships being sent to, or arriving at, Charleston Harbor.
There's no indication that Lincoln's "war fleet" had anything to do with it.

Second, we should notice that these orders were issued long before any Union ships arrived at Charleston.

Third, we should note that on April 3, long before Lincoln ordered his resupply mission to Fort Sumter, Jefferson Davis revealed his plans to CSA Gen. Bragg in Florida:

"It is scarcely to be doubted that for political reasons the U.S. govt. will avoid making an attack so long as the hope of retaining the border states remains.
There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations. "

The chief "other consideration" being that only war could drive Virginians to flip sides from Union to Confederate.
But, just in case Anderson did surrender peacefully, Davis still had Fort Pickens in Pensacola, Florida, to start war with:

"The case of Pensacola then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished."
[Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]"

So, the choice for war belonged to Jefferson Davis and, yes: