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]

OIFVeteran: "Horace Greeley quickly changed his tune..."

As did many others following Fort Sumter.
In this context, let's review again Doughfaced Northern Democrat Buchanan's response:

"...the assault upon Sumter was the commencement of war by the Confederate states, and no alternative was left but to prosecute it with vigor on our part".[80]

"He also wrote a letter to his fellow Pennsylvania Democrats, urging them to 'join the many thousands of brave & patriotic volunteers who are already in the field'.[80] "

Nobody in 1861 understood better than Buchanan the background of Fort Sumter, and Buchanan did not blame Lincoln's "war fleet" or make snide references to a "Tonkin gulf".
Instead he saw the Confederate attack for what it was and urged Union victory.

[rockrr]

So I've seen nothing there to suggest that Lincoln & Marx were "friends", any more than, oh, say, Trump and David Duke today are "friends".

Obviously they weren't and anyone who poses such a proposition is a low-grade moron.

[jeffersondem]

“In the days leading up to Lincoln’s inauguration, the Tribune headed its editorial columns each day, in large capital letters: “No compromise!/No concession to traitors!/The Constitution as it is!””

That is an interesting citation - northern newspapers demanding “The Constitution as it is!”

The United States Constitution at that time enshrined slavery.

Your citation seems to undercut those today that publish opinions saying the war was “all about slavery” and that Lincoln “fought to free the slaves.”

[jeffersondem]

“In other words, you have no quotes from Southerners which say what you claimed at first above.”

You are again moving the goal post.

In your post 244 you did not ask me for a quote from a southerner; only that the supporting quote be pre-war.

Do you reject the supporting quote I provide because you do not believe Abraham Lincoln was born in the South, or because you do not believe him to be a source of high credibility?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You are again moving the goal post.
In your post 244 you did not ask me for a quote from a southerner; only that the supporting quote be pre-war."

So let's review that post #244 and see just who "moved the goal post".

jeffersondem quoted from post #238: "Some in the South predicted that, if elected, Lincoln would take up arms to violently overthrow the pro-slavery United States Constitution and to make war on the states. Maybe he did."

BJK post #244: "Can you cite some pre-war quotes which predict what you claim here?"

Notice my challenge references your claim that some in the South predicted Lincoln would take up arms to... etc., etc.
You responded by moving the goal post to a quote from Lincoln himself which said nothing of the sort.

So I repeat, can you support your claim in post #238 with quotes from "some in the South" predicting that "Lincoln would take up arms to violently overthrow the pro-slavery United States Constitution and to make war on the states"?

I must assume the answer is "no" because otherwise you would have done so already, without resorting to the sophistry of moving your own goal post while pretending it was me who moved.

Typical Democrat.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "In the days leading up to Lincoln’s inauguration, the Tribune headed its editorial columns each day, in large capital letters: 'No compromise!/No concession to traitors!/The Constitution as it is!' "

These would certainly refer to such issues as Crittenden's plan, Corwin's Amendment and demands to surrender Forts Sumter & Pickens.

jeffersondem: "Your citation seems to undercut those today that publish opinions saying the war was 'all about slavery' and that Lincoln 'fought to free the slaves.' "

Crittenden & Corwin were certainly "all about slavery", though neither achieved the highest level of guarantees offered by the new Confederate constitution.
Was the war itself "all about slavery"?

1862: "The Vidette, a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan's cavalry brigade.
In one of the November, 1862 issues, the following appeared:
"...any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar.' ""

"A fool or a liar"?
Now there is a great example of a Confederate predicting our Lost Causers' sophistry.

[jeffersondem]

“The total of Union casualties was two killed, four seriously wounded, out of a 68 man force (+9 officers & 8 musicians = 85). This is roughly the same casualty rate as among US forces in Hawaii on December 7, 1941.”

There were zero Union casualties during the battle. For anyone to suggest otherwise is not fake news, but it is fake history.

After the battle, the gallant Confederates agreed to allow the Union troops to fire a 100-gun ceremonial salute. The reason the Confederates agreed was because they were gallant Confederates.

The Confederates had no idea the Union troops would not be able to conduct the ceremony safely. Casualties resulted when Union troops added sparks to gunpowder out of battery.

If I forget, please remind me to add this gaffe (comparing the zero casualties during the Fort Sumter battle to the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor) to your already respectable list of gaffes in my tally book.

[x]

Any reputable history would tell you that such historical analogies only go so far. Push them too far and they fall apart. The point of history is to understand - not to focus hatreds on one group or another.

You are a very slippery character. Time and time again you make claims and then when people contest or disprove them, you pretend that the discussion was about something else. For example:

Lincoln was clearly a genius. I don't know why you even oppose this accusation against him.

You said that Lincoln was "hailed as a genius" as were Wilson, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama, and that Lincoln got away with things because people thought he was brilliant. But nobody in 1860 thought they were electing a "genius" in Lincoln. And few people today would seriously call Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton or Barack Obama a genius. So your stupid comparison breaks down.

Nobody thought of Lincoln as brilliant in 1860. People were intensely critical of his person and his policies in his time. Today, we judge him based on what he did, not because he promoted an image of himself as a "genius," so your analogy was flawed.

Regional protectionist or national protectionist? Because the two are not the same thing at all.

"Regional protectionism" isn't a thing, now or then. Protective tariffs protected Southern hemp and sugar as they protected Northern industries - and as they protected Southern industries. If cotton planters didn't want the protection of national tariffs they couldn't seriously deny that protection was national in intent.

Here again, you change what the original argument was. Republicans were against open borders free trade in 1860, and they were against open borders free trade in 2016, and you tried to make out that Hillary Clinton was closer in her trade position to Lincoln than Donald Trump was, which is hardly the case.

Race Obsessed liberal lawyer from Illinois was the "status quo" candidate?

Read the 1858 debates. The "race obsessed liberal lawyer" was Stephen A. Douglas. He couldn't stop talking about race. Lincoln was talking about the spread of slavery, not about race.

Lincoln didn't campaign on a program of "change." I'd like to think people back then would have seen through the emptiness of such slogans, but in any case, Lincoln platform was to hold the line against plans to permit slavery in the territories. Whatever you think of his later actions or the results of the Civil War, Lincoln wasn't a candidate of "change" and didn't campaign on such a slogan.

Biggest upheaval in the Nation's history. Seriously, no other person in US history created so much turmoil in an existing society, and we are still dealing with the shockwaves of what he did.

"Shockwaves"? That might have been true 150 years ago when slavery fell, but no. We aren't "still dealing with shockwaves" from then.

Who opposed the Confederates? The people who were at that time controlling the national trade and funneling it through their own pockets, and from the exact same geographical part of the nation from which our own modern domestic globalists emerge.

Again, you ignore the facts. In the 19th century world, Britain was the great promoter of "globalism." Ask the Africans, the Indians, the Chinese and people in other parts of the world. France, Germany, the US and other countries tried to imitate the British achievement, but if you wanted your country or your region to be passive providers of raw materials to British factories and consumers of finished goods from British factories you were a "globalist."

I would just as soon not apply the word "globalism" to the 19th century. But if you want to apply it, you have to recognize that globalization was happening whatever the US did. An unindustrialized USA or CSA would just have been a pawn in the new global order, rather than an active player. Globalization was coming and somebody like you who wanted free trade with Britain would not have been against it.

The North East controlled US global trade back then, and the North East still mostly controls it today.

Britain (and to a lesser degree, France) controlled global trade in 1860. That was the globalization of the day and the US didn't control it, though it definitely wanted to play a role in it.

And today, more than at any time since 1850, the Northeast does not "control US global trade." Texas is headquarters to more Fortune 1000 companies than any other state and California is second with New York third. Of the Fortune 500 companies, New York is barely ahead of Texas and California, but as it has one of the worst business environments in the country, it won't have the lead much longer.

Of course, grass isn't growing in the streets of New York. They have the advantage of being a business center for centuries, but the days when New York City dominated the country's economy to the exclusion of other regions are gone.

Were their complaints unfounded? Were all the Northern states innocent of doing anything wrong to them at the time?

You only prove my point. You said that Lincoln represented "Victim hood politics." I pointed out that Southerners indulged in the politics of complaint and victimhood more than Lincoln or the Republicans did, and you prove my point by trying to justify Southern complaining. You can't back up your point so you change the subject.

I can't think that anybody who has made a serious study of American history would ever agree with your screeds. You're just saying "I don't like these people and I don't like these people so they must be exactly alike." It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with somebody like that.

[rockrr]

Demojeff is pure troll. He’s the kind who will smear poop on himself just to make anyone around him squirm. Definitely not a person to be taking seriously.

[OIFVeteran]

The constitution as it is did not “enshrine” slavery. In fact the constitution founders were so embarrassed by it that they didn’t mention it by name. The constitution also allowed states to get rid of and outlaw slavery. It also allowed congress to outlaw slavery in the territories.

Compare that to the confederate constitution that uses the word slavery and denies states the right to outlaw it. It also clearly states that all new territories must allow slavery. Now you tell me which constitution enshrined slavery.

[OIFVeteran]

Lincoln was the true conservative of the day. He wanted to put slavery back on the path of extinction, as most of the founding fathers wanted to do. If you read the writings of the revolution and constitution founding fathers the large majority knew slavery was contrary to the Declaration of Independence. They thought they had put it on the path of extinction by allowing states to outlaw it and banning it from the territories. If the cotton gin hadn’t been invented it might have died out in the early 1800s.

[dfwgator]

Should have picked our own damned cotton.

[jeffersondem]

“The constitution as it is did not “enshrine” slavery.”

The word enshrine means “include.” The United States Constitution does include slavery - but not until Article I.

I have read those who wish to pretend the United States Constitution is silent or ambiguous on the matter.

Consider: There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law.” - Abraham Lincoln

I regret to have to say it, but the United States Constitution enshrined, errr I mean, included slavery.

[OIFVeteran]

enshrine- 1. To enclose in or as if in a shrine. 2. To cherish as sacred

Include- 1. To contain or take in as a part, element, or member. 2. To consider as part of or allow into a group or class: thanked the host for including us.

There is a world of difference between enshrine and include. To say the founding fathers thought slavery was sacred is ludicrous, but I think you know that.

Questions for you. Does the US constitution contain the word slavery? Does the C.S. constitution contain the word slavery?

[jeffersondem]

enshrine [inˈSHrÄ«n, enˈSHrÄ«n] VERB (be enshrined) place (a revered or precious object) in an appropriate receptacle. “relics are enshrined under altars” preserve (a right, tradition, or idea) in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected. “the right of all workers to strike was enshrined in the new constitution” synonyms: set down · set out · spell out · express · lay down · set in stone · embody · realize · manifest · incorporate · represent · contain · include · preserve · [more]

I intend to fight it out along this line if it takes all summer.

[rockrr]

I applaud your effort to correct the errant, however I would caution you with these words:

‘Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.’ - Mark Twain

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "There were zero Union casualties during the battle. For anyone to suggest otherwise is not fake news, but it is fake history."

Confederate troops accidentally killed by their own side while retreating from battle are considered battle deaths. So as usual, you are splitting hairs inaccurately.

Jeffersondem; "...remind me to add this gaffe (comparing the zero casualties during the Fort Sumter battle to the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor) to your already respectable list of gaffes in my tally book."

You've already chivvied plenty of mess & gom into your talley book while on the prod for Lost Cause arguments.
None of it is honest.

[jeffersondem]

“Questions for you. Does the US constitution contain the word slavery?”

Did you know the US Constitution never mentions the word “muzzleloader?” Not once.

Now, write your theory that there is no constitutional right to own a gun (another shameful word that does not appear) and bring it back and make your case.

[jeffersondem]

“Confederate troops accidentally killed by their own side while retreating from battle are considered battle deaths.”

This entry from Wikipedia talks about Jackson's death in the way I'm most familiar, clearly identifying it as accidental friendly fire:

“In late April and early May 1863, faced with a larger Union army now commanded by Joseph Hooker at Chancellorsville, Lee divided his force three ways. On May 2, Jackson took his 30,000 troops and launched a surprise attack against the Union right flank, driving the opposing troops back about two miles. That evening he was accidentally shot by Confederate pickets. The general survived but lost his left arm to amputation; weakened by his wounds, he died of pneumonia eight days later.”

Other than you, I rarely see Jackson's tragic death compared to the Jap attack on Pearl Harbor.

[x]

Look north to Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy who during the war wrote that Lincoln was “but the fungus from the corrupt womb of bigotry and fanaticism”— a “worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero.”

In 1864, Amos Kendall published a series of letters denouncing Lincoln. “Our federal Union,” he declared, “is in more danger this day from Abraham Lincoln and the unprincipled and fanatical faction to whom he has surrendered himself, soul and body, than from all other causes combined.”

There are always nuts, and the more violent their rhetoric the less reliable their views may be. What will people in the future say about our own era?

And consider: General Scott, war hero and Commander of the U.S. Army, said of the “wayward sisters…let them go in peace.”

Now surely you know that quote is taken out of context. Scott was writing a memo to the president outlining four possible courses of action: 1) cave in on slavery in hopes of keeping the slave states in the union, 2) non-recognition and blockade, 3) military conquest, 4) let the seceded states go with no effort to resist their demands. It's clear from Scott's language that he didn't think immediate action to retake the South would be wise, but it's not clear which of the other alternatives he favored. Given what he said and wrote on other occasions, it would be wrong to conclude that he favored just letting the slave states have their way.

I don't like to get drawn into these endless Civil War discussions. It's a lot of work researching quotes and their contexts and finding new quotes and facts. But sometimes something falls into one's lap. Here's something I read recently:

Americans remembered Andrew Jackson and his stern treatment of an earlier controversy with South Carolina when Jackson had vigorously rejected South Carolina’s ordinance nullifying the 1832 federal tariff. In this controversy Jackson warned South Carolina that states had no right to invalidate any federal law; he encouraged Congress to pass the Force Bill mobilizing the army, even as he began readying the navy at Norfolk along with three units of artillery to counter South Carolina’s actions. He also established communication with Unionists in the state, sending his own agents to collect tariffs and maintain the presence of the federal government. Buchanan did none of these things. In case Buchanan did not remember this precedent, Winfield Scott, who at the time of the nullification crisis was the commander of federal forces in Charleston harbor, reminded the president in a letter written on December 15, 1860, before the secession of South Carolina. According to Scott,

          'Long prior to the force bill, (March 2, 1833,) and prior to the issue of his proclamation, and in part prior to the ordinance of nullification, President Jackson, under the act of March 3, 1807, “authorizing the employment of the land and naval forces,” caused reinforcements to be sent to Fort Moultrie, and a sloop of war, (the Natchez,) with two revenue cutters, to be sent to Charleston, in order, 1, to prevent the seizure of that fort by the nullifiers, and 2, to enforce the execution of the revenue laws. . . . President Jackson familiarly said at that time “that . . . he was not making war on South Carolina; but if South Carolina attacked them, it would be South Carolina that made war on the United States.”'

Even Buchanan’s fellow Democrats from the North were, like his great rival, Illinois senator Stephen Douglas, disgusted with the president. They believed the Militia Acts of 1795 and 1807 authorized the president’s calling out of the militia whenever the laws of the United States could not be sustained by normal police action. -- Jean H. Baker, "The South Has Been Wronged," in James Buchanan and the Coming of the Civil War, John Quist and Michael Birkner, eds.

So there was plenty of precedent and legal support for presidential action against the rebellion. Buchanan didn't want to take action, but Scott fully believed that the president could and should take a stand against secessionism. More from the same article:

By the winter months of December and January, Southerners had taken advantage of Buchanan’s hands-off policy and had begun what he predicted would never happen—their assaults on federal property, not just in South Carolina but throughout the South. Buchanan did not try to block the takeovers of Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney in Charleston harbor; nor did he comment on the surrender by a naval officer of the revenue cutter Aiken. He said nothing when, on January 3, 1861, Georgia troops captured Fort Pulaski, and nothing about the successful assaults by Louisiana militia forces on Forts Jackson, St. Phillips, and Pike or the seizure of the New Orleans or Baton Rouge customhouses. Nor did he respond a few days later when Florida militia seized the Pensacola navy yard along with Fort Barrancas and Fort McRae, or in February when secessionists seized the Little Rock arsenal in Arkansas. Perhaps most egregiously, he said nothing when a general of the U.S. Army, David Twiggs, simply surrendered his military units without any struggle to a local militia before Texas had even seceded. Most of these aggressive actions were prompted by the false statements and threatening propaganda, fostered by Southern governors, that the United States was about to send federal reinforcements.

For example, Governor Joseph Brown of Georgia ordered a local colonel in charge of 125 state volunteers to seize Fort Pulaski and to retain it until the Georgia convention “decided” on secession. In most cases there was no opposition from federal forces, and nearly all of these actions occurred extralegally, even before the states had seceded. The results would be devastating when the Civil War came. According to William Freehling, “some 75,000 stands of arms had been confiscated from U.S. forts and arsenals” in December and January.13 By any rendering, through his inactivity the president of the United States had become an activist, allowing arms to be delivered into the hands of the future enemies of the United States.

Although General Winfield Scott had twice recommended to the president the immediate garrisoning of these forts to deter any attempt to take them over and to make any effort “by surprise or coup de main ridiculous,” Buchanan had not agreed. Indeed, Scott, in an addendum to his “Views” written in October 1860, responded to the argument that there were no available troops by locating five specific regiments that could immediately be deployed

So state governments were seizing federal property before secession resolutions had been voted, and sometimes before secession conventions had even met. Those who want to argue that federal property somehow automatically became state property once secession was voted have to face the fact that rebel leaders were seizing property even before secession had been voted -- in an even more obvious breach of the law -- and Scott felt the federal government could legally take action against such expropriations.

When you have a major crisis, leaders are improvising. They're trying to figure out what their options are. Some options are lost as time goes one. New options may open up. Or the crisis actors may find them supporting moves that they didn't initially favor. You can't just pick one quote and say it reflects what they thought throughout the crisis - at its beginning, at the end, and in the middle of everything. Especially not your quote from General Scott, which was taken out of context.