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]

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

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."

Important to remember that when the Star of the West arrived at Charleston Harbor, January 9, 1861, there was no Confederacy, no chain of command, only South Carolina had seceded, and Union Maj. P.G.T. Beauregard was on his way to take command of cadets at West Point.

As for Charleston cadets firing on the civilian steamer Star of the West, it's inconceivable they did so without permission -- indeed, they could not have even known Star of the West was a "hostile" without being so informed.

Regardless, the incident demonstrated that Confederates would not willingly tolerate normal, peaceful resupply of Fort Sumter.
A different method would have to be found.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Did Lincoln go to war to 'free the slaves?'
The claim that he did seems to be in dispute."

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

jeffersondem sooooo enjoys arguing both sides of this that just can't give it up.
What Lost Causers want to say is: Civil War had "nothing to do with" slavery, and to prove it they trot out quotes from Lincoln & others saying they only wished to preserve the Union.

However, there are just as many quotes from both Union & Confederate sources saying it was, indeed, "all about slavery" -- Reasons for Secession were all about slavery, as were the Emancipation Proclamation and 13th Amendment.
But, but, say Lost Causers, Lincoln never mentioned slavery in his April 15 proclamation calling up 75,000 troops, so see, see, it had nothing to do with slavery, they say.

And posters like jeffersondem just love this "debate" so much they'll argue both sides on the same thread, switching sides without a moment's blink or missing a beat.

The truth of the matter should be clear to anybody who really cares about truth: slavery was important in the beginning, during the middle and at the end of the Civil War, but it was not the only important issue.

[OIFVeteran]

Very true. Though every once and awhile they will slip and admit that slavery did have something to do with it. Jeffersondem did so in an earlier post when he stated;”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.”

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

Of all the Big Lies our Lost Causers tell, this is one of the biggest, a fact that DiogenesLamp himself will admit in brief moments of lucidity.
Consider the Confederacy's very rapid growth:

1. When South Carolinians declared secession in December 1860 they represented barely 1% of US total land and 2% of US population.

2. When Texans seceded in February 1861, the Confederacy had grown to 15% of total US land & population.

3. When North Carolinians seceded in May 1861 Confederates had grown to 20% of US territory and 28% of its population.
   But it didn't stop there.

4. Confederates also claimed the Union states of Missouri and Kentucky, which would increase their territory to 23% and population to 36% of total USA.
   But they wanted more.

5. Confederates also claimed Union territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico and West Virginia, increasing their totals to 29% of territory and 37% of the population.
   And it didn't stop there.

6. Confederate armies also invaded Union Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Kansas which if successful combined would increase the Confederacy to 35% of US territory and 61% of US population.

And in brief moments of lucidity, DiogenesLamp readily admits Confederates wanted, intended and could have taken over vastly more of US land, leaving a rump USA with maybe New England and the Upper Midwest.

But, according to true Lost Cause Mother Church doctrine, this was never an existential threat to the USA and the US had no "right" to defend itself against such military actions.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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."

As shown in post #200 above, Jefferson Davis intended to start war at Fort Sumter and/or Fort Pickens, regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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...

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

Right, Lincoln could have avoided war, just as Buchanan did, by surrendering to every Confederate demand.

What could possibly go wrong?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Pelham: "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. "

And thus DiogenesLamp again reveals the true purpose of Lost Cause mythology -- to convince Americans that Lincoln & Company were liberal Democrats while Confederates were the true Conservative Republicans.

The real truth is that Confederates were Southern Democrats -- as "resistance", rebellious and America-hating as any Democrats today.
Lincoln was a conservative defender of the Constitution as originally intended.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe to DiogenesLamp: "You know as well as I do that Davis ordered Beauregard to reduce the fort prior to the arrival of the resupply ships."

Right, and this is typically the point where DiogenesLamp claims that he can't respond because you're answers are "too long" or "just talking points", etc.

In fact even before Lincoln took office, Davis ordered Beauregard to prepare to assault Fort Sumter.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you are unaware that the Star of the West was on a covert mission to sneak reinforcement troops into Sumter, you need to inform yourself.

It's unlikely you forgot this, you just chose not to remember such things as this, and this is why I find it pointless to bother with you.

You will simply refuse to acknowledge any objective fact which does not fit your narrative. You remind me of the media.

[jeffersondem]

“IMO, no (Lincoln did not go to war to “free the slaves”), restoring the Union was Lincoln’s objective in going to war.”

Then there is this (post 146): “It was indeed, “all about slavery”.”

So critic answers critic.

Those are two reasons that, as an objective observer, I say we may never know the real reason Lincoln invaded the South and killed so many.

Other than he consider it in the best economic and political best self-interest of his backers.

[DiogenesLamp]

Very true. Though every once and awhile they will slip and admit that slavery did have something to do with it.

Let's see. Slavery legal in the Union for "Four Score and Seven Years."

Lincoln urged passage of the Corwin Amendment, which actually did pass both houses of Congress and was ratified by 3 or 4 Northern states.

So tell me again what slavery has to do with it? Seems like both sides were in agreement that slavery would continue as it had always been.

Seems like you have to twist a bunch of the truth to even make slavery the issue in the Civil War.

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

Well certainly John Brown's raid was about Slavery, because he was a dangerous lunatic, little different from the Eco terrorists who burn down buildings and car dealerships to "save the earth."

John Brown *MADE* his focus slavery, and he was not the only dangerous lunatic running around at the time. Those 5 wealthy men in Massachusetts (little different from modern liberal billionaires financing Antifa and other dangerous groups) who financed Brown were still out there, and presumably still intent on provoking a slave revolt in the South.

Incidentally, lest someone get to thinking that these men had some moral issue compelling them to finance these dangerous terrorists, I will now inform you they were all Wool merchants and associates, and Cotton was their number one competitor. Had they wrecked slavery in the South, they would have all seen immense increases in profits due to the unavailability of cotton, which would therefore create the necessity for alternatives.

John Brown was also a wool supplier. That was his primary business, and Cotton represented his gravest economic enemy, so there is a good chance his hatred of slavery had more to do with his own economic problems than it did with any moral concerns.

Yes, the dangerous Lunatics made their actions about "slavery", but this isn't the same as saying this would have been the focus of Southerners without Abolitionist lunatics making them focus on it just for their own self defense.

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.”

And did he not do exactly that? Seems like their fears were spot on.

[Bull Snipe]

Besides firing on the United States flag and personnel of the Unites States Army.

[DiogenesLamp]

And thus DiogenesLamp again reveals the true purpose of Lost Cause mythology -- to convince Americans that Lincoln & Company were liberal Democrats while Confederates were the true Conservative Republicans

Let's see.

Race obsessed? Check.

Liberal? Check.

Big City? Check.

Corruption? Check.

Having the most support in the areas which are still today bastions of Liberal Democrat power? Check.

Tax and Spend? Check.

Loved Big government projects? Check.

Protectionist? Check.

Advocates of "Change"? Check.

Backed by big money in the big cities? Check.

Supported by the International "globalist" types? Check.

Grew government power? Check.

Victim hood politics like Modern Liberal Democrats? Check.

Handing out government goodies in trades for votes? Check.

Cracking down on Freedom of Speech? Check.

And countless other similarities to Modern Democrats.

[DiogenesLamp]

I noticed you did not respond after I posted to you the text of that telegram informing Beauregard that there was no need to attack the fort if Anderson would merely state the time at which he would evacuate it.

I take the fact that you did not respond as an acknowledgement that what you first said was incorrect, and now since I have made you aware of the fact that there was no pressing intent or desire to attack the fort was in fact the truth at that time, you no longer wish to press the point.

The evidence clearly shows that the arrival of those ships changed the equation. Note that it did specify that there would be no need to attack *IF* Anderson would agree to not fire on them.

That is clearly a reference to the anticipated confrontation between the Ships and the Confederate shore batteries.

Anderson of course did not agree, and he informed them that if they fired at those ships, he would fire at them.

This made it a military necessity to deal with him before the ships had a chance to assemble and organize their attack. Had he simply said that he would not attack them, they would have left him alone.

He told them that he would attack them, and this left Beauregard no choice and no wiggle room.

Had Anderson given his word, there probably would have been no attack on anyone, because unbeknownst to the Confederates, those ships were never going to attack them because Lincoln had sent the command ship to Florida under secret orders, where it immediately tried to attack Confederates along the shores, and did in fact fire shots at confederate ships.

As if it was deliberately trying to start a war at Ft. Pickens.

[GOPJ]

bump to the top

[DiogenesLamp]

Your map doesn't go far enough. The Confederacy would have eventually acquired all the territories and many of the Northern states as well.

The economics would have made this happen. The South being independent would have broken New York's control over these other regions, and both the states and territories would have found it to be in their best financial interest to leave the USA and join the CSA.

[rockrr]

Busy stuffing strawmen this morning I see. Carry on...

[GOPJ]

I lived in the Jim Crow South.

Because the South was solid democrat - whoever won the democrat primary won the election. There were NO Republican office holders in the South.

The only strategy against democrats was to join the democrat party and take part in their primary - vote against the worst of them...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "If you are unaware that the Star of the West was on a covert mission to sneak reinforcement troops into Sumter, you need to inform yourself."

It's irrelevant, President Buchanan could send whatever he wanted to Fort Sumter.
But your comment here also suggests your previous claims that South Carolina cadets fired on Star of the West without orders, such claims are without merit.

DiogenesLamp: "It's unlikely you forgot this, you just chose not to remember such things as this, and this is why I find it pointless to bother with you."

Naw, the real fact is you hate the truth, you loathe it with a passion, just like any Democrat, and so you refuse to respond.

DiogenesLamp: "You will simply refuse to acknowledge any objective fact which does not fit your narrative.
You remind me of the media."

Now you're just projecting your own failings onto others.
Typical Democrat.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "So critic answers critic.
Those are two reasons that, as an objective observer, I say we may never know the real reason Lincoln invaded the South and killed so many."

I'll refer you back to post #202:

"The truth of the matter should be clear to anybody who really cares about truth: slavery was important in the beginning, during the middle and at the end of the Civil War, but it was not the only important issue."