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.
“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 . . .”
To that I would say this: 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 on. New options may open up. Or the crisis actors may find them supporting moves that they didn’t initially favor. That may have very well have happened in the South at times. I would be surprised if it didn’t.
Regardless, you took a lot of time to make a reasoned argument and supported your point of view with appropriate historical documents. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Jackson died in battle, as did the Union troops killed at Fort Sumter.
Jackson’s death came during the battle, but my hypothetical was retreating Confederates, after a battle, mistaken & killed by their own side.
Still considered unfortunate battle deaths.
In the interest of full disclosure, you might add that after the bloodless fighting at Ft. Sumter, and after surrender terms were agreed upon - Union troops accidentally mishandled gun powder resulting in one death and two or three injuries.
And then, for good measure, go ahead and say - “it was as bad, or worse, than the Jap attack at Pearl Harbor, so help me.”
The two killed were US 1st US Artillery Regiment's Pvts. Daniel Houghton and Edward Galloway.
They are recorded as the first & second deaths of the Civil War.
The names of the four wounded are not usually reported.
jeffersondem: "And then, for good measure, go ahead and say - “it was as bad, or worse, than the Jap attack at Pearl Harbor, so help me.”"
Six men killed or wounded out of a 68 man force is roughly the same percentage as killed & wounded on December 7, 1941.
Union loss of Fort Sumter in 1861 was roughly equivalent to the loss of, say, the Philippines in 1942.
Their effort to retake Sumter, in 1863, cost the Union over 100 lives, and failed.
Right, iow: jeffersondem is here to criticize, condemn and complain about the Unites States, not to defend Confederates.
Thanks x for great posts: #268 & #280.
“. . . jeffersondem is here to criticize, condemn and complain about the Unites States . . .”
I regret that my objective view of history is not in emotional synchronization with your sectional agenda.
Perhaps unwittingly, your visceral objection is to my wry, fun-loving (but non-malicious) humor.
Nonsense, your off-piste humor would be enjoyable if you weren't always on the prod to chivvy your anti-American mess & gom into the Lost Cause tally book.
Your constant toggling from "all about slavery" to "not about slavery" is out of synchronization with any agenda outside the Lost Cause.
Indeed, the only thing consistent about your posts, whether wry, fun-lovingly humorous or not, is that they're always anti-American.
And that's not funny.
“Indeed, the only thing consistent about your posts, whether wry, fun-lovingly humorous or not, is that they’re always anti-American.”
On second reference, just call me “Deplorable.”
And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our fellow-citizens to the office of President does not of itself afford just cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if his election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a majority of the people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes, which may probably never again occur. In order to justify a resort to revolutionary resistance, the Federal Government must be guilty of "a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise" of powers not granted by the Constitution.
The late Presidential election, however, has been held in strict conformity with its express provisions. How, then, can the result justify a revolution to destroy this very Constitution? Reason, justice, a regard for the Constitution, all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous act on the part of the President elect before resorting to such a remedy. It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President-elect have been sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the very nature of his office and its high responsibilities he must necessarily be conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated concerns of this Government affords in itself a guaranty that he will not attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right.
After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of the Government. His province is not to make but to execute the laws. And it is a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstanding the repeated efforts of the antislavery party, no single act has ever passed Congress, unless we may possibly except the Missouri compromise, impairing in the slightest degree the rights of the South to their property in slaves; and it may also be observed, judging from present indications, that no probability exists of the passage of such an act by a majority of both Houses, either in the present or the next Congress. Surely under these circumstances we ought to be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spake as man never spoke, that "sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The day of evil may never come unless we shall rashly bring it upon ourselves.
It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the Southern States are denied equal rights with the other States in the common Territories. But by what authority are these denied? Not by Congress, which has never passed, and I believe never will pass, any act to exclude slavery from these Territories; and certainly not by the Supreme Court, which has solemnly decided that slaves are property, and, like all other property, their owners have a right to take them into the common Territories and hold them there under the protection of the Constitution.
State of the Union Address: James Buchanan (December 3, 1860)
Except James Buchanan did not take a “hardline” against secession. And the words of his State of the Union speech documents he did not take a hardline.
If he had taken a hard line he might have sent his Navy on the prod to provoke a Fort Sumter incident. Or at least he could have contended that dissolution of the union could only be valid through unanimous agreement of all the states.
Buchanan wanted to preserve the Union, but so did a lot of people including a lot of southern leaders.
Many historians rank Buchanan as one of the worst U.S. presidents, if not the worst, because they view him as being
softline, not hardline. See link.
The argument in your post 289, well intentioned, falls apart. But not until the first line.
Many thought he believed he couldn't do anything because he didn't want to do anything, hence the accusations of treason or sedition made against him.
If unilateral secession was unconstitutional, but no one in the federal government could do anything about it, that didn't leave the constitution with much authority.
He hints it is illegal more than taking a hard line.
“It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President-elect have been sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the noblest system of government ever devised by mortals?”
Buchanan never answers the question directly. But he does hint that he doesn't think the time is yet ripe for immediate dissolution.
Your argument - Buchanan was hardline in a soft way - seems skinny if not lightweight.
It seems clear that he did, maybe not to your satisfaction or the secessionists', but he did answer the question in a way that left no doubt as to his own opinion.
And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our fellow-citizens to the office of President does not of itself afford just cause for dissolving the Union.
.....
It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President-elect have been sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the very nature of his office and its high responsibilities he must necessarily be conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated concerns of this Government affords in itself a guaranty that he will not attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right.
After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of the Government. His province is not to make but to execute the laws.
Naw, "deplorable" is the word you Democrats use against us Republicans.
We don't call y'all "deplorable", but you are deploring of us irredeemable pro-Americans.
Well... jeffersondem is powerfully suited to comprehend exactly what he wants to, no more, no less.
;-)
“. . . he (Lincoln) must necessarily be conservative. . . affords in itself a guaranty that he (Lincoln) will not attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right.”
Buchanan’s wish casting and false sense of well being did not put southern concerns to rest.
And contrary to Buchanan’s expectations - and the U.S. Constitution - Lincoln arrested without charges and without trial, of as many as 13,000 United States citizens and imprisoned them for years. Set aside that Lincoln’s invasion of the southern states resulted in the deaths of as many as 800,000 Americans.
It was controversial at the time, but in 20/20 hindsight it is clear the South was right to attempt to defend themselves.
How, then, can it be fairly said Buchanan took a “hardline” against secession?
It would make more sense to argue Buchanan took a faux hardline.
Buchanan says, if you stay in the Union there's nothing harsh or rash or untoward or tyrannical that Lincoln can do to you slave states.
They don't stay in the Union. They steal federal property. They fire on federal troops. They conspire to split up the country.
Lincoln takes measures against the secessionists, measures that he wouldn't have taken (or been able to take) had they not taken up arms against the country, seized federal property, fired on American troops, and conspired to tear the federal union apart.
Nothing in what happened proved that Buchanan was wrong about the powers of the presidency or about what Lincoln was capable of doing had the slave states not rebelled.
Unilateral secession was an unconscionable folly.
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.