Fixed it for your.
jeffersondem: "Brings to mind: 'A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant.' "
Tyrant meet tyrant.
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.
What does that even mean? The United States of America had slavery in every state when it was founded. One of the complaints against George III in the Declaration of Independence was that he was fomenting slave revolts.
You guys keep trying to split hairs between the legal slavery Union and legal slavery Confederacy, and there really is no compelling argument to be put forth from that direction.
The UNION was a legal slavery Union for four score and seven years. In fact it had slavery longer than the confederacy, and only gave it up through Dictator control and constitutional trickery.
Without committing illegal/immoral acts, they could have never gotten rid of slavery in the 1860s.
That's the crux of it - if he didn't parrot the same 4 or 5 myths he wouldn't have anything to say at all.
bump to the top
I'm glad I'm on your side. I wouldn't want to have to argue against the facts you bring to the discussion.
As if facts persuade anyone. :)
They will simply ignore these points and continue repeating their own.
Love reading your posts. You bring quite a lot of information to the table.
“As if facts persuade anyone.”
The facts are so unkind to our friends across the aisle I expect they will be dropped from discussions entirely going forward.
What we are likely to get is an orchestrated wave of emotional narrative unbounded by the formality of documentation.
It may voice itself from the illusory high ground in ways that sound like - “Lincoln fought to free the slaves.”
Get a room.
Fixed it for your.
jeffersondem: "Brings to mind: 'A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant.' "
Tyrant meet tyrant.
But there were no "intolerable abuses" in December 1860 when SC declared secession, none, because Southern Democrats were still in charge in Washington DC.
They had suffered no harm under President-elect Lincoln, none.
So they declared secession in anticipation of the harm they might someday suffer.
Since they had no standing to claim victimhood, their declarations of secession were, in Madison's & Buchanan's words, at pleasure.
No Founder ever proposed or supported secession at pleasure.
No Founder, while living, ever proposed or supported unilateral declaration of secession at pleasure.
That's a fact, FRiend.
Fixed it, and here's why:
DiogenesLamp: "Madison was a member of the committee that wrote Virginia's ratification statement.
Virginia clearly said it can reassume it's powers given up to the Federal government.
If Madison had any issues with this position, he should have voiced them during the committee meetings."
Neither Virginia, nor Madison, nor any other Founder ever proposed or supported unilateral declaration of secession at pleasure.
DiogenesLamp: "Virginia's collective statement, and one of which Madison was a part, rebukes supports Madison's 1830 claim.
So do the statements of New York and Rhode Island."
Fixed it.
Neither Virginia, nor Madison, nor New York, nor Rhode Island ever proposed or supported unilateral declaration of secession at pleasure.
Slavery is never mentioned directly in either the Declaration or the Constitution.
Thomas Jefferson did write a powerful anti-slavery paragraph for the Declaration, but his fellow Southerners wouldn't have it.
DiogenesLamp: "You guys keep trying to split hairs between the legal slavery Union and legal slavery Confederacy, and there really is no compelling argument to be put forth from that direction. "
Complete rubbish!
The UNION allowed abolition for four score and seven years, the Confederacy prevented that.
DiogenesLamp: "In fact it had slavery longer than the confederacy, and only gave it up through Dictator control and constitutional trickery."
The Union allowed abolition from Day One while Confederates only gave up slavery after a four year war killing ~700,000 soldiers and final Unconditional Surrender.
No "Dictator" ratified the 13th Amendment, states did, willingly, according to the wishes of their voters.
DiogenesLamp: "Without committing illegal/immoral acts, they the Confederacy could have never gotten rid of slavery abolition in the 1860s."
Fixed it.
Facts: The US Constitution allowed states the ability to make slavery illegal. It also allowed Congress to outlaw slavery in the territories.
The CS constitution did the opposite. It mandated all current states and new stares must allow slavery. (So much for stared rights.) It also mandated that any territory acquired by the CSA must allow slavery.
Just saw your reply after I posted mine. Nice job. Let’s see how they deal with these facts.
But DiogenesLamp has no facts, it's all just lies & distortions.
;-)
That is an interesting comment. What does it mean when you specify “while living?”
Does the “while living” reference distinguish what they supported in this case from other times you know of when they supported things when they were not living?
My guess is the reference to “while living” was superfluous chatter incorporated, perhaps unwittingly, to add credibility and gravitas to a claim that otherwise has neither.
The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.
Washington's Farewell Address 1796
To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.
Notice where he states it can only be changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people. He doesn’t say by a state or a geographical area, the whole people.
The fact in this discussion is that Virginia specifically articulated a right to reassume the powers they were giving up in their ratification statement issued in 1788.
New York also explicitly said they could reassume those powers, and so did Rhode Island.
Since these facts cannot help your argument at all, you chose to just ignore them.
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.