Ku Klux Klan Called for the Killing of Republicans

Lies My Teacher Told Me We never learned the truth about this. For more, visit www.mngop.com/brc click into critical thinking and read the many articles.

History has doucumented the Ku Klux Klan platform calling for the murders of the Negro and the Republicans. We work in the spirit of courages founders. We owe it to the spirit of a lot of great people in our party to work boldly towards the elimination of hate. I am proud to be a Republican and walk in the spirit of God and early Republicans. Let us pick up the courage of these people and come back to the party of bold leadership and change. To study this issue further, go to your favorite search engine and type in the key words Ku Klux Klan "Republicans"

Some members of the Republican Party were not only in favour the abolition of slavery but believed that freed slaves should have complete equality with white citizens. They also opposed the Fugitive Slave Act and the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This group became known as Radical Republicans. Members included Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Joshua Giddings, Benjamin Wade, William D. Kelley, Owen Lovejoy, Henry Winter Davis, George W. Julian, John P. Hale, Benjamin Butler, Joseph Medill, Horace Greeley, Oliver Morton, John Logan, James F. Wilson, Timothy Howe, George H. Williams, Elihu Washburne, Schuyler Colfax, Zachariah Chandler, James Ashley, George Boutwell, John Covode, James Garfield, Hannibal Hamlin, James Harlan, John Andrew, Lyman Trumbull, Benjamin Loan, Wendell Phillips, Frederick Douglass, Charles Drake and Henry Wilson.

After the 1860 elections the Radical Republicans became a powerful force in Congress. Several were elected as chairman of important committeees. This included Thaddeus Stevens (Ways and Means), Owen Lovejoy (Agriculture), James Ashley (Territitories), Henry Winter Davis (Foreign Relations), George W. Julian (Public Lands), Elihu Washburne (Commerce) and Henry Wilson (Judiciary)..

Radical Republicans were critical of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, when he was slow to support the recruitment of black soldiers into the Union Army. Radical Republicans also clashed with Lincoln over his treatment of Major General John C. Fremont. On 30th August, 1861, Fremont, the commander of the Union Army in St. Louis, proclaimed that all slaves owned by Confederates in Missouri were free. Lincoln was furious when he heard the news as he feared that this action would force slave-owners in border states to join the Confederate Army. Lincoln asked Fremont to modify his order and free only slaves owned by Missourians actively working for the South.

When John C. Fremont refused, he was sacked and replaced by the conservative General Henry Halleck. The Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, William Fessenden, described Lincoln's actions as "a weak and unjustifiable concession in the Union men of the border states. Whereas Charles Sumner wrote to Lincoln complaining about his actions and remarked how sad it was "to have the power of a god and not use it godlike".

The situation was repeated in May, 1862, when General David Hunter began enlisting black soldiers in the occupied district under his control. Soon afterwards Hunter issued a statement that all slaves owned by Confederates in his area (Georgia, Florida and South Carolina) were free. Lincoln was furious and despite the pleas of Salmon Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, the instructed him to disband the 1st South Carolina (African Descent) regiment and to retract his proclamation.

In the early stages of the American Civil War Lincoln only had one senior member of his government, Salmon Chase (Secretary of the Treasury), who was sympathetic to the views of the Radical Republicans. Later in the war other radicals such as Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War), William Fessenden (Secretary of the Treasury and James Speed (Attorney General) were recruited into his Cabinet.

Radical Republicans were also critical of Lincoln's Reconstruction Plan. In 1862 Benjamin Wade and Henry Winter Davis, sponsored a bill that provided for the administration of the affairs of southern states by provisional governors until the end of the war. They argued that civil government should only be re-established when half of the male white citizens took an oath of loyalty to the Union. The Wade-Davis Bill was passed on 2nd July, 1864, but Abraham Lincoln refused to sign it.

Despite their insistance that the white power structure in the South should be removed, most Radical Republications argued that the deated forces should be treated leniently. Even while the American Civil War was going on Charles Sumner argued that: "A humane and civilised people cannot suddenly become inhumane and uncivilized. We cannot be cruel, or barbarous, or savage, because the Rebels we now meet in warfare are cruel, barbarous and savage. We cannot imitate the detested example."

After the war Horace Greeley advocated universal amnesty and actually put up the bail for his long-term enemy, Jefferson Davis. Lyman Trumbull and Hannibal Hamlin campaigned for better treatment of those Confederate leaders still in prison and James F. Wilson took up the case of the former vice-president, Alexander Stephens.

Radical Republicans were strongly opposed the policies of President Andrew Johnson and argued in Congress that Southern plantations should be taken from their owners and divided among the former slaves. They also attacked Johnson when he attempted to veto the extension of the Freeman's Bureau, the Civil Rights Bill and the Reconstruction Acts. However, the Radical Republicans were able to get the Reconstruction Acts passed in 1867 and 1868. Despite these acts, white control over Southern state governments was gradually restored when organizations such as the Ku Kux Klan were able to frighten blacks from voting in elections.

In November, 1867, the Judiciary Committee voted 5-4 that Andrew Johnson be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. The majority report contained a series of charges including pardoning traitors, profiting from the illegal disposal of railroads in Tennessee, defying Congress, denying the right to reconstruct the South and attempts to prevent the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

On 30th March, 1868, Johnson's impeachment trial began. Johnson was the first and only president of the United States to be impeached. The trial, held in the Senate in March, was presided over by Chief Justice Salmon Chase. The Radical Republicans played a leading role in the trial. Thaddeus Stevens was mortally ill, but he was determined to take part in the proceedings and was carried to the Senate in a chair.

Charles Sumner, another long-time opponent of Johnson led the attack. He argued that: "This is one of the last great battles with slavery. Driven from the legislative chambers, driven from the field of war, this monstrous power has found a refuge in the executive mansion, where, in utter disregard of the Constitution and laws, it seeks to exercise its ancient, far-reaching sway. All this is very plain. Nobody can question it. Andrew Johnson is the impersonation of the tyrannical slave power. In him it lives again. He is the lineal successor of John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis; and he gathers about him the same supporters."

Although a large number of senators believed that Johnson was guilty of the charges, they disliked the idea of Benjamin Wade becoming the next president. Wade, who believed in women's suffrage and trade union rights, was considered by many members of the Republican Party as being an extreme radical. James Garfield warned that Wade was "a man of violent passions, extreme opinions and narrow views who was surrounded by the worst and most violent elements in the Republican Party."

Others Republicans such as James Grimes argued that Johnson had less than a year left in office and that they were willing to vote against impeachment if Johnson was willing to provide some guarantees that he would not continue to interfere with Reconstruction.

When the vote was taken all members of the Democratic Party voted against impeachment. So also did those Republicans such as Lyman Trumbull, William Fessenden and James Grimes, who disliked the idea of Benjamin Wade becoming president. The result was 35 to 19, one vote short of the required two-thirds majority for conviction. A further vote on 26th May, also failed to get the necessary majority needed to impeach Johnson. The Radical Republicans were angry that not all the Republican Party voted for a conviction and Benjamin Butler claimed that Johnson had bribed two of the senators who switched their votes at the last moment.

The Radical Republicans campaign for equal rights for African Americans was not a popular cause after the American Civil War. In 1868 Henry Wilson argued that the issue cost the Republican Party over a quarter of a million votes in 1868. In the election that year several of the radicals lost their seats including the long-term leader of the group, Benjamin Wade.

When Ulysses S. Grant was elected the only Radical Republicans in his administration was Schuyler Colfax, his vice-president, George Boutwell (Secretary of the Treasury) and John Creswell (Postmaster General). Later, he found posts for George H. Williams (Attorney General) and Zachariah Chandler (Secretary of the Interior).

After the American Civil War a group of former soldiers from the Confederate Army founded the Ku Klux Klan. The first Grand Wizard was Nathan Forrest, an outstanding general during the war. During the next two years Klansmen wearing masks, white cardboard hats and draped in white sheets, tortured and killed black Americans and sympathetic whites. Immigrants, who they blamed for the election of Radical Republicans, were also targets of their hatred.

Radical Republicans in Congress urged President Ulysses S. Grant to take action against the Ku Klux Klan. After a campaign led by Oliver Morton and Benjamin Butler, Grant agreed in 1870 to instigated an investigation into the organization and the following year a Grand Jury reported that: "There has existed since 1868, in many counties of the state, an organization known as the Ku Klux Klan, or Invisible Empire of the South, which embraces in its membership a large proportion of the white population of every profession and class. The Klan has a constitution and bylaws, which provides, among other things, that each member shall furnish himself with a pistol, a Ku Klux gown and a signal instrument. The operations of the Klan are executed in the night and are invariably directed against members of the Republican Party. The Klan is inflicting summary vengeance on the colored citizens of these citizens by breaking into their houses at the dead of night, dragging them from their beds, torturing them in the most inhuman manner, and in many instances murdering."

Congress passed the Ku Klux Act and became law on 20th April, 1871. This gave the president the power to intervene in troubled states with the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in countries where disturbances occurred. The passing of this legislation was the last substantial victory for the Radical Republicans in Congress.

In the 1870s several Radical Republicans, including Benjamin Wade, William D. Kelley, George W. Julian, Benjamin Butler, Henry Wilson and John Covode campaigned for the eight hour day and improved conditions for working people. However, they were now fairly isolated and were unable to persuade Congress to pass legislation to protect the emerging trade union movement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not now see any way this side a miracle of God which can avoid a civil war with all its attendant horrors. Peaceable dissolution is utterly impossible. Indeed, I cannot say as I would wish it possible. To make the concessions demanded by the South would be hypocritical and sinful. They would neither be obeyed nor respected. I am inclined to believe that the sin of slavery is one of which it may be said that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission. I believe the doom of slavery is drawing near - let war come - and the slaves will get a vague notion that it is waged for them.

NEXT: The liberal welfare has been equal to slavery. See this at www.mngop.com/brc click into critical thinking.

Send your responses to: Black Republican Coalition PO Box 4171 Saint Paul MN 55104 or email to MnBRC@hotmail.com

"Seriously, how many Republicans were there in the South during that time any way?"

If "by that time" you mean Reconstruction and the post 14th & 15th Amendment era, probably the majority of many southern states were Republican. That would include virtually all freed slaves and a sizable percent of white Unionists who never supported the Confederacy. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and other deep-south states that had majority or near majority black populations and also had Unionist sentiments sent Republicans to congress and elected Republican majorities to state legislatures, etc. That is why the KKK was founded --- to keep blacks away from the polls and return Democrats to office. The function of the KKK and related groups from the late 1860s until the 1960s was as the enforcement arm of the Democrat party, and they did their job with exceptional, if brutal efficiency.

Even today, you will still hear of elections in southern states that mark "the first Republican since Reconstruction or some such wording. (I think the current Texas legislature is the first Republican majority since Reconstruction.) If the current crop of race hustlers really wanted to sue an institution for support of slavery and civil rights abuses, they should sue the Democrat Party instead of some Insurance company or railroad that had some remote tie at best to past slavery and discrimination. The Democrats have a documented, totally non-interrupted 160 year history of championing both slavery and racial discrimination.

To Joe Stalin

The Republican Party was formed around 1858, out of the ashes of the Whig Party. The Whigs, were pro national bank, pro tariff, and in favor of supremacy of the Federal government over the States. The Republicans, garnered most of the Whigs, and the abolitionists as their base

Fractured history in the flavor of your namesake. The Republican Party was formed in 1852 in the Midwest as a Free-Soil party who's platform was entirely opposition to the expansion of slavery to the West. They were not necessarily abolitionists although some abolitionists (not all) were attracted to their platform as more politically realistic in the pre-Civil War days. (just as many Libertarians register and vote Republican today -- a more realistic vote as opposed to the Lou Rockwell no-chance party)

Whigs could come down either way on slavery with the general divide being that Northern Whigs were likely anti-slavery and anti-expansion while southern Whigs were pro-slavery and pro-expansion. That divide is what killed the Whig Party in the 1850s with the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Act. While the Whigs were divided on slavery, the Democrats were united. There was no such thing, North or South, as an anti-slavery Democrat! As the Whigs collapsed, Southern Whigs like CSA V.P. Alex Stephens became Democrats while Northern Whigs like Lincoln became Republicans. But there was no such thing as an anti-slavery democrat. North or South, they all actively supported it or were not opposed to it and would vote for those who did support it.

The Democrats did run a split ticket in 1860 which led to the election of Lincoln. It may have not been pro slavery vs anti slavery per se, but it was along sectional lines of which slavery was a big issue. The bigger issue was supremacy of the States vs the Federal government.

I'm not sure what "supremacy issue" you think was there, (I'm not aware of one) but the split, totally engineered and premeditated at the Charleston convention by the fire-eaters, broke the dems along anti-secession Douglas Democrats and pro-secession Brackenridge democrats. Other than secession, their platforms were nearly identical and aside from slavery expansion, the Republican party platform in 1860 was not radically different than either of those two. All the party platforms, for instance, supported Federal monies for a trans-continental railroad. The only disagreed on what state the Eastern terminus would be in. The only significant issue in the 1860 election was the question of the expansion of slavery.

The fire-eaters engineered the split to assure a Republican victory that would virtually guarantee the secession of the deep-south. Not even they would have gone along with secession if a Republican had not won. The "Black Republican" propaganda broadcast by the fire-eaters in the years before 1860 sufficiently terrified enough of the non-slaveholding population of the south to go along with the secessionist slaveocracy. Read the "Black Republican" propaganda of the day and you will see that the Jessi Jackson/Paul Bugala/DU lies and hate mongering we see today are among the oldest traditions of the Democrat Party. They have always preyed on the uninformed and ignorant. It’s what Democrats do best.

The Radical Republicans were a sectionalist party, which favored the interests of Northern Corporations, which included a national bank, and primacy of the Federal government over the States. Once the Federal government became supreme then it could force the States to acquiesce to conform in total. The Corporate interests preferred dealing with one central government to manipulate and bribe, as opposed to having to deal with each State separately.

Joe, start reading some history instead of the demented revisionist time-travel stuff that seamlessly projects attitudes of the 1890s guilded age on people of the 1860s. The Radical Republicans of the 1860s were a sub-set of the Republican Party, not the party itself. The Radical Republicans did not support Lincoln!!! Lincoln was not a Radical Republican. The majority of the Republican Party was not Radical. There was nothing "radical" in 1860 about supporting a National Bank. There was nothing "pro-corporate" about supporting a National Bank. There was little or no "corporate world" in 1860 to run the government. The industrial revolution in America was still in its infancy. Most manufacturing interests were small, family operations. Very few corporations had as many as 100 employees. The largest enterprises of the day were railroads, and they were mostly small, point-to-point operations, that regularly went bankrupt. There was nothing "radical" in supporting internal improvements -- i.e. harbors, canals, roads and rail --- all made commerce easier and were especially to the benefit of small farmers who made the vast majority of the electorate in 1860. These ideas were not especially sectional. Support or opposition broke down along economic interest lines with the wealther and money interests generally opposed and smaller less wealthy interest supportive.

The Radical Republicans were given that name for one and only one reason --- they supported what was then a very radical agenda --- that slavery should not only be ended immediatly, but that blacks were entitled to every right (voting, equal access to public facilities such as schools, property ownership rights, jury duty, office holding, even the right to marry outside their race) that a white man was entitled to. Those ideas remained "Radical" to many for 100 years after the Radical Republicans started. Bobby Byrd and some few others likely still consider those ideas to be radical even if they try not to mention it in public.

BTW. The Radical Republicans also supported the trade union movement and even in the 1860s, supported the 8-hour day and worker rights to organize. Tell me exactly how that was furthering any "Corporate Interests"?

Had the Dems not split and won the election things would have played out differently, seccession would have been peaceful and the South would have gone its way.

Had the Dems not split, pro-slavery Northern Democrat, Stephen Douglas, would have been elected president. He was the only "non-sectional" candidate. With Douglas, it's doubtful that even South Carolina, a hot bed of secessionist fire-eaters, could have gotten enough support from their non-slaveocrat population for secession. But just supposing they had pulled of secession anyway, I doubt Douglas would have acted much differently than Buchanan or Lincoln in the events leading up to the firing on Sumter.

After Sumter was fired on, only a President who wanted to be impeached immediately would have refused to respond. The outrage in the North was too great and Douglass would have called out the state militias just as Lincoln did. Probably the one big difference is that the Upper South States would have remained loyal had Douglas been president (he had very large, even majority support in all of them) and they would have likely joined the Northern states in forcing South Carolina and the other deep south states back into compliance with the Constitution. Another difference is that clowns like Ruffin and the other secessionist leaders would have likely meet the same fate as John Brown in his attempted 'secession' at Harpers Ferry.

That being said, the Repubs were a sectionalist party representing the interests of the North.

Define the "North"? The Republicans, as the Free Soil Party were formed and had their largest base in the Upper Mid-West, not in the East which the neo-confederate revisionists typically characterize as representing the entire "North. In the 1860 elections, Lincoln barely squeaked out victories in the East --- New York and Pennsylvania were complete toss-ups. He lost New Jersey. To portray either the "North" or the "South" as a single political entities with unified goals or political agendas is simplistic to the point of distortion. It was a very complex and volatile political map.

There was already a disparity on Federal revenue collected and where the monies got spent in favor of the North.

Well there was a disparity, but surely not in the North's favor. The primary source of Federal revenues collected then were from import tariffs, and well over 70% of those tariffs were collected in the Northern states while approximately 50% of the Federal budget was spent in the South. That is logical when you consider that only around 40% of the population lived in Southern states and 30% of those were chattel slaves who had no money to purchase imports while the Southern states comprised about 50% of the land area of the states.

Read Alexander Stephens speech to the Georgia assembly in Dec. of 1860 where he lays out the figures on where tax money came from and where it was spent. Just on the post office, the Federal Government's largest single outlay in those years, Northerners subsidized Southerners to the tune of $9 million a year --- a sizeable chunk of change in those days. Moreover, the total Federal Government revenue in those times was piddling and amounted to no more than a $2 or 3 dollars a person per year. No one would go to war over that amount of money.

With the election of Lincoln, and with the North having more votes in Congress, and with said disparity only to increase with the moratorium on new slave states allowed to join the Union. The nation was already divided, culturally, economically, and with Lincoln, politically.

The "North" had more votes in Congress for decades. The election of Lincoln had no impact on that factor. As for the "divide" from a purely economic standpoint, the interests of the agricultural states of the west and the south were not significantly different but with one major exception --- slavery. The southern slave states and the western farm states could have formed coalitions in Congress to block or pass anything they wanted. Combined, they out numbered the East. But slavery prevented that collation from forming. The primary political interest of the "Western States" was blocking the expansion of slavery into new territories while the primary interest of the deep-south states was to assure the expansion of slavery. Lincoln's political base in the West has economic reasons for their position of anti-expansion and the south, especially the deep south had economic reasons for their pro-expansion position. We can go into those reasons if you like, but the point is that Lincoln aside from blocking expansion of slavery to the West threatened none of the Southern states in any way. The issue was not their political influence in Congress, but the economic well being of a small, but very powerful class of men in the deep south who's future relied primarily on maintaining the long term value of slave property.

The solution was for the South to peacefully secede from the Union, just as the 9 original ratifying States did when they seceded from the "perpetual Union" of the Articles.

Then where was their call for a convention to modify or dissolve the previous form of government as the men of 1787 had done? And if they expected a "peaceful" separation, why was their first action (in some cases even before the states approved secession) to raise an army more than 10 times the size of the Union army and to engage in acts of violence against Federal institutions and Federal officials?

No one at that time believed secession would be peaceful. They all expected war to be the result and both sides deluded themselves into believing they would win it quickly and easily. Such is human nature.

So if slavery were the reason for the War, why did Lincoln offer the South to keep their slaves in return for returning to the precious Union in 1863, and why then if that were the paramount reason did the South refuse?

A fundamental reason that the neo-confederates always avert their eyes from. Slavery where it existed was not the issue -- Expansion of slavery was the issue! Lincoln never in any way threatened slavery where it existed but vowed to keep it isolated there. If you can't comprehend why expansion was so important --- important enough to go to war --- I suggest you study the basic laws of supply and demand. The slave population continued to double every generation while the available amount of prime cotton, rice and sugar land in the south had just about reached it's peak. Without expansion, (i.e. new markets for slaves) the value of all slaves would have plummeted once supply outstripped demand. They needed new markets to keep their Ponzi game going and with the ascendancy of the Republican party, that was not going to happen as long as they remained part of the United States.

Now you think Mississippi was the "wealthiest" state in the nation. Granted, there were some very wealthy individuals living in mansions along the Gulf coast --- likely many of the wealthiest people in the country. But what did that wealth consist of? Two things --- land and slaves and of the two, the slaves were the most valuable. On the typical plantation the slaves were worth more than all the land, buildings and machinery combined. Their wealth was in the form of people.

The entire population of the state of Mississippi was less than a quarter of the population of either Pennsylvania or New York and over 50% of that population were chattel slaves who had no money to buy anything. The majority of whites were small, hard-scrabble farmers and poor as dirt. More than half couldn't even read, but you somehow would claim that small number of white people, the majority of who were poor, consumed more imported goods that the vastly larger populations of New York or Pennsylvania where a viable middle class had already developed. The fact is that the Port of Philadelphia collected more tariff revenue that all southern ports combined! And Philadelphia only collected half of what the Port of New York collected. Do you want us believe that European merchants were stupid enough to ship their good to Philadelphia when the primary market for their goods was New Orleans or Biloxi? Why on earth would they pay the extra transportation costs to send goods over a 1000 miles of torturous roads and rail lines with weeks of delay and potential damage when they could simply spend a few more days at sea and take it directly to those consumers? The fact is that the majority of customs houses in the southern ports did not collect enough revenue to cover their own operating costs. Southern ports were primarily export centers and the vast majority of European ships came loaded with ballast, not goods.

A point on protective tariffs the neo-confederates always seem to skip when they whine about how "unfair" tariffs were, is that tobacco, cotton, rice and sugar also had high import tariffs to protect the main industries of the south just as iron and manufactured goods were protected to nurture the industries of the north. It was very much a two-way street that generally worked to the benefit of both sections.

BTW. If the Missouri Compromise "defined" the North and South, what was bleeding Kansas about? Why did the south demand the Kansas-Nebraska Act?

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.