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: "Abe Lincoln clearly started the war by sending a fleet of warships with orders to fire upon the confederates if they did not obey his will to keep a garrison in Ft. Sumter."

No, Lincoln's orders were, in effect, "no first use of force."
The choice for war belonged to Jefferson Davis.

He chose...

DiogenesLamp: "Wealthy, White, Rich, Privileged, Liberal Captains of Industry from New York and the North East clearly recognized that they would be heavily damaged or perhaps destroyed financially if the South... "

Northern Democrats were joined at the hip -- politically, economically, socially -- to their Southern Democrat partners, did not wat to let them go, were happy to support slavery if that could keep them.

[SoCal Pubbie]

As later posts illustrate, there’s no need to mention names when members of the Jeff Davis Fan Club out themselves with very little prompting.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, Lincoln's orders were, in effect, "no first use of force."

Sending Warships was a first use of force. You do not send warships unless your intent is to harm.

[wardaddy]

It’s just innuendo from you dear

Name names

Look at my tag line

That sums up my feeling

Is JR a Sesch Jeff Davis Fan Club too

I asked you specifically

Give examples of what was said and who said it

Why is that so difficult for you

[rockrr]

There’s only (ever) been two ways to achieve independence - by mutual accord or by force of arms. The slavers chose that latter. Poor choice!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

They simply say it is so, and they repeat it over and over until the public accepts this claim.

I'm pretty sure that their shelling of a fort flying the United States flag had something to do with public opinion on the matter, too.

A lot of people want to pretend that the 13th, the 14th, and the 15th amendments were valid amendments to the constitution, but the constitution was never intended to be changed through Washington DC control of puppet governments that would do the bidding of Washington DC.

Yes, your opinion that the process through which slaves were freed and blacks given civil rights was highly improper is well known.

[rockrr]

Either you are lying, weren’t paying attention, or had the ONLY textbook that didn’t mention it.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "The man fights a war to preserve the Union"

DiogenesLamp: "Which he explicitly had no right to do since our own nation was founded on God given right to independence. "

Which Lincoln had a constitutional duty to do since the US was attacked by a military force "too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law".

DiogenesLamp: "He did not really care about preserving the Union.
What he cared about is preserving the New York POWER CORRIDOR control of Southern economic output. "

This is just one place where DiogenesLamp's semi-rational arguments careen into blithering insanity.
In fact, Lincoln from Illinois was chosen by Republicans in 1860 precisely because he did not have ties to such Eastern "power brokers".

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln offered to let all the initial seceded states go if Virginia would pledge to remain, "

And here DiogenesLamp resorts to bald-faced lies to force his "logic" to work.
In fact (according to some) Lincoln offered to surrender Fort Sumter in exchange for Virginians' permanent adjournment of their secession convention -- "a fort for a state is a good deal", Lincoln reportedly said.

jmacusa: "and them orders the salves freed. "

DiogenesLamp: "Which only a dictator could do.
US Law protected the rights of slave owners to own slaves.
Ordering them freed was defiance of existing law. "

More lies. US law did not protect states in rebellion.

DiogenesLamp: "He also did not order them freed out of the milk of human kindness.
He ordered them freed to give him political power by disenfranchising all the whites, and granting voting rights to all the blacks.
This is how his party got even more power. "

A happy coincidence of the "milk of human kindness", Republican ideological commitment to anti-slavery policies, protection of Constitutional government and political self interests.

DiogenesLamp: "It's always about money and power.
It is *NEVER* about morality, kindness, or decency. "

Only in the minds of political nihilists like DiogenesLamp.
To normal conservative Americans there is always more morality, kindness and decency than mere Marxist dialectical materialism.

[rockrr]

When cops respond to an armed robbery do they go armed?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Sending Warships was a first use of force.
You do not send warships unless your intent is to harm. "

Maybe -- but in 1858 Democrat President Buchanan sent a much larger war fleet to Paraguay to settle a matter of national honor.
That war fleet was also ordered, in effect, "no first use of force".

The Paraguayans decided they wanted peace and made the necessary accommodations.
They chose wisely.

Jefferson Davis, by contrast:

[jeffersondem]

“That would require a constitutional amendment, something he often called for and worked to pass once the election of 1864 gave him the congressional majority that it would require.”

Lincoln could have proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in his first inaugural address, demanded a vote, and if successful, ended slavery without a shot being fired. And he would have too, if it had been in the economic and political best interest of his backers.

In fact, Lincoln himself could have introduced an amendment to abolish slavery much earlier when he actually served in Congress. And he would have too, if it had been in the economic and political best interest of his backers.

Without a shot being fired.

[DiogenesLamp]

There’s only (ever) been two ways to achieve independence - by mutual accord or by force of arms.

When the Founders created the Declaration of independence, there was another way. It was called "accepting other people's rights to self determination", and the people of the United States were going to accept this way.

Someone *MADE* it into a force of arms, and that someone was Abraham Lincoln who would not let them go in peace.

They tried to leave peaceably, but Lincoln would have none of it, because his government and it's corrupt deep state influencers and wealthy power brokers would be deprived of the income to which they had become accustomed.

Such is the case today. Those arrogant wealthy and powerful bastards living in New York and Washington DC still control the destiny of all the other states, just like they control the media system.

Our fight today is the same fight the Southerners had in 1860. It is a fight against a corrupt and powerful oligarchy mostly located in the North East, and through who's pockets flows trillions of dollars of government money collected from the rest of us.

We have a pretend Democracy. Wealthy Liberal billionaires and influence peddlers in New York and Washington DC mostly control the makeup of our government, and they influence it to serve their best interests, and not those of the people of America.

Where did all the Federal money for Baltimore go?

Trump is asking this question, and it is the same all over. Where do the Federal dollars go?

[rockrr]

You’re not that profoundly ignorant of history - why are you pretending to be so witless?

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm pretty sure that their shelling of a fort flying the United States flag had something to do with public opinion on the matter, too.

I'm pretty sure that when someone sends a fleet of warships to open fire on you, you suddenly realize that you need to do something about that fort behind you, or you are going to get shot from both the back and the front.

But people conveniently leave out the fact that the Confederates only took the action they did because it was made clear to them that war fleet had arrived, and would soon be shelling them.

So what would *YOU* do if you had just learned that warships were arriving to fight you?

Yes, your opinion that the process through which slaves were freed and blacks given civil rights was highly improper is well known.

Ignores the point. Do you think it is a valid process to put guns to people's heads and order them to vote as they are instructed? Is that what the founders meant when they spoke of an amendment process?

Is it possible to get an honest statement out of you on this particular point?

[DiogenesLamp]

And now I have lost interest in what you write, primarily because it’s usually just assertions, and also far too long.

[DiogenesLamp]

When dictators launch an invasion, they always come armed. Keep in mind, the land being invaded belonged to the people that lived there. It did not belong to the corrupt government of Washington DC.

The people going into other people's states to oppress them against their will were not cops. They had no more right to be there than the British did after 1776.

[rockrr]

I guess you really are that ignorant. Pity.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So what would *YOU* do if you had just learned that warships were arriving to fight you?

Gosh, I don't know...maybe NOT start shooting at the US flag. Of course, I wouldn't put myself in the position of just declaring myself to be a different country now and then be surprised when the government doesn't simply accept that.

Ignores the point. Do you think it is a valid process to put guns to people's heads and order them to vote as they are instructed? Is that what the founders meant when they spoke of an amendment process?

So what do you want to do about it? Declare them invalid?

[DiogenesLamp]

You’re not that profoundly ignorant of history - why are you pretending to be so witless?

Pointing out that the corrupt money redistribution scheme that is Washington DC and the New York Media/propaganda/Financial center of the Deep state has been an evil monster since at least 1860 is not being witless, it's recognizing that our government has become a twisted caricature of what it was originally created to be.

The Washington DC government is a money redistribution system for wealthy and corrupt people of influence and power.

This is why we have 20 trillion in admitted debt. Who created it? Washington DC! Who will pay it? We taxpayers!

Slavery didn't end, it just got reduced somewhat in degree but expanded greatly in scope.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The people going into other people's states to oppress them against their will were not cops. They had no more right to be there than the British did after 1776.

Tell that to the Indians.