Posted on 12/11/2014 4:56:48 PM PST by xzins
Excellent!! I’d like to send this to my RINO Rep. EVERY Pubbie Rep needs to read - and understand this.
Me too, dearest sister in Christ. How this all works out, I haven't got a clue. But it can't continue much longer, without wreaking possibly irremediable damage on our nation. Something's gotta give.... And "past" is no reliable "predictor" here: the current chaos in the public sphere is unprecedented in my lifetime.
Thank you so much for writing, dearest sister!
well said...
Please explain the line of reasoning that lead you from my remarks to that conclusion.
In the final analysis, my remarks were too brief, too cryptic (perhaps that is saying the same thing two different ways), and therefore easily misconstrued.
So . . . my fault.
Democrats were the Slavers (there were others . . . Moslems, Monarchists, etc) opposed to Lincoln and the party he founded. Later, events forced them into becoming Segregationists. But Democrats cared for neither term (Slavers or Segregationists ~ who can blame them), so they chose to piggyback their misanthropic ideas on the liberality of Jefferson – Madison, calling themselves “Liberals,” “Progressives,” and the like. To this day, Democrats attempt to use threats, bribes, and intimidation to get what they want. Some Republicans have likewise always thought of themselves as “liberal” and for all practical purposes are indistinguishable from Democrats (we call them RINOs). The days of the whip and the sale block, or even of the KKK are gone, of course, but the same devices applied in more subtle ways still prevail, as have they always, and will continue to be applied until they are exhausted (if ever that day comes).
None of the above, of course, having to do in any way with the Judeo-Christian ideas of the Founding Fathers, of which Lincoln spoke so highly.
“Or am I reading too much into what you wrote, dear brother in Christ?”
Indeed, I think you are.
Dear brother in Christ, indeed your remarks were "too brief, too cryptic." The hope motivating my reply was to draw out your thoughts; and so, I tossed you a "bouquet."
I don't think I "misconstrued" your remarks. I had written:
It is evident that America is now a “house divided against itself.”And you replied:
As it was in Lincoln’s day, has been ever since, and always was.I instantly caught the (unstated) reference to the history of human chattel slavery in America. I have long thought that the "three-fifths of a person" definition pertaining to some men is the Achilles Heel of the U.S. Constitution. From the beginning, as it were.
And you are right to say as it "always was." I daresay many, if not most, of the Founders were slaveowners. It is beyond question that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
Still, I find it interesting that, at the end of their lives, the two men made entirely different decisions about the future of their human captives.
By his Last Will and Testament, Washington emancipated all his slaves.
When Jefferson died, he left an estate $200K in the red (in then-current dollars — a "King's Ransom," an astronomical sum in today's dollars). He had over 200 slaves employed in agriculture, and also in his manufacturing activities (he was a huge nail mogul for a time), some of whom were highly skilled and ingenious individuals.
So, what did his Last Will and Testament provide for with respect to these human captives?
Except for five, all were sold as his chattel property at auction, to help defray claims against his (bankrupt) estate.
The five who were emancipated are nowadays widely regarded as his own children, born of the slave Sally Hemmings (possibly the half-sister of his beloved wife, who died young). TJ did not emancipate Sally. [Possibly he had sound reasons for this.]
Just goes to show that there is a sort of difference in character between a Washington and a Jefferson.... To me, the former is almost a saint; and the latter, the very figure of the modern, post-Enlightenment Man.
So the background here goes deep. You pick up at the time when "Democrats were the Slavers," first made manifest in the Abolition Movement, which eventuated in the bloodiest and most costly war America has ever fought, the Civil War, made even more ugly by the fact that it was a war conducted between brothers.
In the aftermath, after the assassination of Lincoln, Republicans in Congress proposed Amendments to the federal Constitution guaranteeing, not only the emancipation of slaves, but also their right as U.S. citizens to enjoy all the benefits as equal members of American society, under just and — above all — equal laws.
The congressional Democrats fought the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments tooth and nail. But in the end, they could not stop their submission to the States for ratification. At least three-fourths of the States ratified them, as constitutionally mandated [Article V]. Voilà: new constitutional Law.
The response of the Democrat Party? Well. certainly it was not to bow their heads to the will of the supermajority of the sovereign States. Instead, it turned out that, wherever the Democrat party was dominant, a regime of "separate but equal," of Jim Crow law, even active terrorist repression (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan) became the norm for the next roughly one-hundred years.
So, my question is: Why, oh why, do so many contemporary Americans of (remote) African heritage seem to believe the Democrat Party is in the business of defending and advancing their interests???
A total cynic might say that "one can take the slave out of the 'plantation'; but that doesn't necessarily mean that one can ever take the 'plantation' out of the slave."
I feel sure that such a "conclusion" would leave some of our greatest, pre-eminent American thinkers — such as the "magnificent" Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr., et al. — spinning in their graves....
I daresay this sort of thing — "underclass" social dependency — really got started with LBJ. Race relations were beginning to boil in his time. I gather he figured the best way to manage that situation — to the benefit of his Party, of course — was to recognize that Black Americans "were voters, too"; and thus "could be bought."
So today, we are still reaping the whirlwind of that constitutional Achilles Heel.... For even though the American People, through Civil War and Article V constitutional American legal process, have sought to rectify this early profound defect in our original Law, making "reparations" for it in multi-trillion-dollar expenditures of taxpayer money over the past five decades — race relations in America seem to be going from bad to worse. And the economic status of many Black Americans has likewise gotten worse.
I guess we can thank our ersatz-president 0bama for that. He's a "transformational president" all right. But he is not a "healer"; he is a DIVIDER.
His main tactic is division leading to conquest. He uses the "Race Card" to move his "agenda" along.
He could care less about the genuine welfare and prospects of Black Americans. They are just other pieces to be played, in whatever game he's playing.
But THAT is a subject for another time!!!
Anyhoot, just some musings, my friend. If I offended you in what I wrote, please know that was never my intention; and that I apologize to you, and hope you will forgive me.
Thank you so very much for expounding your thoughts, dear brother in Christ!
I hope and pray that you and all your dear ones will have a Happy, Blessed, Merry Christmas!
And you are right to say as it “always was.” I daresay many, if not most, of the Founders were slaveowners. It is beyond question that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
Hangover from Merry Old England..
Monarchy was and is...... Mob Rule by mobsters..
Serfs were in fact slaves..
SOooo
They went instead to Democracy which is itself Mob Rule by Mobsters...
A step sideways..
The Colonies were too until they puked out the Monarchy..’Became TRAITORS to King George.. and revolted..
WHY?,, for the most part, the word democracy is stated NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution.. NOWHERE.. on purpose..
Facts that goes right over the head of anybody in England and it MUST be said... “CANADA”.. as well...
Englands and Canadas givernments ARE indeed Mob Rule..
Only marginally different than Monarchy..
The USA is quickly becoming as STUPID as England and Canada..
What a very fascinating, informative essay-post, dearest sister in Christ! Thank you!
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.