The party of the working class?

Gateway Pundit ^ | Nov.7, 2024 | Mike LaChance

[13Sisters76]

You want some hard truths about the democrat party? Well, allow me to give you some. I am a historian, and I have the paperwork to prove it and I have been involved with politics since I worked on Reagan's first campaign. I know the democrat party's history- pretty interesting stuff when you get into it. The democrat party has ALWAYS been the party of the wealthy elite- the plantation owners with their feudalistic, two tier caste system and slavery. They were willing to kill 300k o their own citizens and 340k of OURS to hold on to it with the Civil War, and one of their politicians even tried to beat a republican senator, Chas. Sumner, to death on the Senate floor. Know what democrats did? Sent more canes to Preston Brooks with "Hit him again!" engraved on them. Even after they lost, they STILL tried to hold on to control with the KKK, Jim Crow and segregation, fought the civil rights laws with days-long filibusters- the filibuster they are now trying to kill- and fought to keep "segregation now, segregation forever". Beginning about 1860 and until now, a brand new European ideology made its way to this country and was fully embraced by the leftists HERE and in the democrat party- socialism. The democrats had found a brand new home! Marx wrote that with the use of "useful idiots" this ideology could be presented to the gullible working class as a benefit to them. Alinsky would write the same thing 100 years later. The "continental" democrats would elevate the absolute worst people who ever lived to icon status, people like Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger, Lothrop Stoddard and Alfred Kinsey. Woodrow Wilson was elected by these people as president. Perverts and anti-Semites, rabid racists and segregationists. These people are still admired by today's democrats as "great thinkers". This has led to the democrat mindset that government should only be run by those "fit to rule" as Hillary has said and never by the people- those unfit human weeds. They relied on the likes of John Dewey, to destroy our education system and turn it into an indoctrination system. As Dewey famously said: "You can't make a good socialist out of an individual". This party has NEVER been the party of the working class except as rhetoric, never been the party for minorities, has NEVER been the party of the family and hates Christian conservatives far above anything else. They feel nothing but contempt for the middle class, and you know why? Because the working middle class is the economic engine of liberty- the one thing they want to destroy. They are the party they have always been, the party of the wealthy elites. They are better than you and smarter than you. They believe that fact that they are richer than you proves it. And NOW, bigger and older money has moved in and taken full ownership of the party, the wealthy foreign globalists. One way or another, they intend to control this country and YOU, "you will own nothing and you will be happy". They own the corporate media who lies to you, hires smear merchants and creates hysterical hoaxes- what do you mean you don't believe it? How dare you! They steal elections, in your face, and defy you to do anything about it, something they have been perfecting since Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. They have twisted our judicial system and our policing agencies until we can't trust them anymore. They hold political prisoners in what have become gulags, denying them their Constitutional rights along the way. They created agencies with unaccountable bureaucrats to oppress American citizens and with the express purpose of making end runs around the Constitution. Even before Obama, they embedded democrat operatives in every agency to see that Americans have NO voice in their regulations and rules and to block every initiative by our elected officials to rein in this threat. The party of the working class? Absolutely not and never has been.

[RckyRaCoCo]

“Human sacrifice. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!”

"Girls will be boys and boys will be girls It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world..."

[DiogenesLamp]

You want some hard truths about the democrat party? Well, allow me to give you some. I am a historian, and I have the paperwork to prove it and I have been involved with politics since I worked on Reagan's first campaign. I know the democrat party's history- pretty interesting stuff when you get into it. The democrat party has ALWAYS been the party of the wealthy elite- the plantation owners with their feudalistic, two tier caste system and slavery. They were willing to kill 300k o their own citizens and 340k of OURS to hold on to it with the Civil War, and one of their politicians even tried to beat a republican senator, Chas. Sumner, to death on the Senate floor.

Well so much for your credibility as a "historian." You just regurgitated the same ridiculous propaganda that the mainstream has spewed since the civil war.

Firstly, Charles Sumner *DESERVED* that beating. He was a very nasty man that said unforgiveable things about an elder senator, and it was his nephew, Preston Brooks who beat the sh*t out of Sumner.

I read Sumner's speech. *I* would have beaten the sh*t out of him too, if he had said such things about one of my relatives.

Sumner's own friends tried to stop him during his speech, telling him "Stop! They will kill you!"

Sumner was a nasty piece of work that deserved his beating.

Secondly, the *WEALTHY* were the Northeastern power brokers. Same then as it is today. The industrial titans of the Northeast were the wealthy, and they had the game rigged so that the North received 60% of all the revenue from slavery. They were making more money from slavery than the actual slave owners were!

Notice also that they didn't go to war over the Plantation owners having slavery. Indeed, they passed the Corwin amendment through the House and Senate by a 2/3rds majority to make sure the plantation owners could always have slaves. What they went to war over was those slave owners were *LEAVING* and taking their 60% of that money with them.

The power elite of the North were just fine with eternal slavery, but what they absolutely would not tolerate is cutting off their money supply and overthrowing their control of the Southern states.

And this idiot "Historian" is seemingly unaware of the reality of what happened.

[Sicon]

"We need to speak their language"

Yeah, well, after all the illegals you've let in, close to half of your voter base probably doesn't speak English, so good luck with that.

[joshua c]

some interesting points

where could i read more about the northeastern power brokers and the slave revenue?

[Tired of Taxes]

You wrote: "Charles Sumner *DESERVED* that beating. He was a very nasty man that said unforgiveable things about an elder senator, and it was his nephew, Preston Brooks who beat the sh*t out of Sumner."

---

So, you think he deserved a beatdown because he said something that offended someone?

[cowboyusa]

Trump just carried out a modern day Jacksonian movement,and Jackson would hav3 HANGED Brooks.

[DiogenesLamp]

where could i read more about the northeastern power brokers and the slave revenue?

I'll have to find you some links. It's been so long since anyone asked me for sources and information that I stopped keeping track of it some years ago.

I can think of one source right away. There is a book called "Southern Wealth and Northern Profit", and it was written by a New Yorker named "Prentice Kettle." It shows exactly where all the money came from and where it went.

It was written in 1860, and so it was before anyone could rewrite history to favor one side or the other.

Now i'll warn you, the book is very racist and dated, so some of the things it covers will offend modern sensibilities, but the economics and math it lays out are thorough and accurate.

Also there is the official record. It shows the same numbers.

To give people a better idea of what was going on, I often post this map. (Which is misleading, but not when you understand what is going on.)

See that pile of coins over New York representing trade with Europe? 72% of the trade with Europe came from the South. New York got the money.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, you think he deserved a beatdown because he said something that offended someone?

For what he said, yes. Insinuating that an elderly member of the senate is having sex with his own slaves, at an assembly in front of Congress, definitely deserves a good beating.

And at a time when miscegenation was not only illegal, but considered repugnant and immoral, doubly so.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, you think he deserved a beatdown because he said something that offended someone?

Jackson killed people for saying far less than what Sumner said.

[cowboyusa]

Ok, he would have shot Summer and Hanged Brooks. Just like he wanted to do with Clay and Calhoun.

[Tired of Taxes]

Where in his speech did Sumner make that accusation against Butler? I can’t find it.

[x]

For what he said, yes. Insinuating that an elderly member of the senate is having sex with his own slaves, at an assembly in front of Congress, definitely deserves a good beating.

He didn't say that actually. What he said was more abstract and figural, rather than literal:

The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean the harlot, Slavery. For her, his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator. The frenzy of Don Quixote, in behalf of his wench, Dulcinea del Toboso, is all surpassed.

Sumner didn't say that Butler actually was having sexual relations with his slaves. Worse, though was that Sumner mocked Butler's disability.

[He] touches nothing which he does not disfigure with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. He cannot open his mouth, but out there flies a blunder.

This was after Butler had had a stroke and couldn't speak well.

Butler made the same sort of assertions that you believe Sumner did and he escaped a beating:

According to Manisha Sinha, Sumner had been ridiculed and insulted by both Douglas and Butler for his opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, with Butler crudely race-baiting Sumner by making sexual allusions to black women, like many slaveholders who accused abolitionists of promoting interracial marriage.

If Sumner had actually accused Butler of having sexual relations with his slaves, he might not have been wrong. That was certainly the case for Butler's successor, James Hammond. More details, if you dare, are here.

As senators warned at the time, Sumner did go too far, but just where the line wasn't exactly clear at the time, I doubt he deserved getting beaten to the point where he was incapacitated for over a year.

[Tired of Taxes]

Thank you, x.

I saw that part of the speech before I replied. Because Sumner used the word mistress as a metaphor for slavery in that passage, I figured either Sumner was misunderstood, or Brooks overreacted, or Brooks was reacting to something else Sumner said.

I, too, see no justification for the beating of Sumner. That beating sounds more like attempted murder.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where in his speech did Sumner make that accusation against Butler? I can’t find it.

Insinuated. Implied it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have no idea whether or not Butler was diddling his slaves, but at that point in history, to imply that someone was, was fighting words.

It might have been seen as all that more offensive if it was in fact true.

As senators warned at the time, Sumner did go too far, but just where the line wasn't exactly clear at the time, I doubt he deserved getting beaten to the point where he was incapacitated for over a year.

Hitting him in the head so many times was excessive, because the injury he suffered was verging on maiming. Of course the people back then didn't take affronts lightly, and I have no doubt some wish he had been killed.

I find myself nowadays wanting to hit leftists in the mouth for their lies. I've reached a point where I don't think arguing with them serves any useful purpose, and allowing them to shriek and carry on and spew lies and insults serves no good purpose either.

Punching them in the mouth might serve to make them keep a civil tongue in their head.

I see parallels between the divisions then and the divisions now.

[DiogenesLamp]

Brooks probably shouldn't have hit him in the head so much, but Sumner definitely deserved to get beaten.

[Tired of Taxes]

I don’t see any insinuations or implications, either.

I see a metaphor. Sumner was beaten over a metaphor.

[Tired of Taxes]

Sumner did not deserve to be beaten or even punched. Brooks and Keitt (both Democrats) should have been thrown into prison for the attack. It was not justifiable in any way.

[13Sisters76]

Ah. I’m very happy when you people expose yourselves. It makes my work that much easier and tells others who to ignore.